History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 2 of 10)

History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 2 of 10)

"With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all modern languages, signifies either a form of literary composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such composition—either a narrative of events, or events which may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole, to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may, with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule rather than the exception. The majority of so-called definitions of history are definitions only of the records of history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history. They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one, 'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des Geschehenen). {1648} The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and explicit indication of what history as effectuated or transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species. According to such definitions history consists of exceptional things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of history. History is made up of what is little as well as of what is great, of what is common as well as of what is strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow, however, that biography is a more general notion than history, and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the history of an individual as to say that history is the biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical sense, not the word history in the former case. … According to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying that politics and history are the same, and may both be divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that something may be called either this or that. Besides, the identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been already indicated, on a view of history which is at once narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are present history, as that political history is past politics and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

R. Flint, History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc., pages 5-10.

HISTORY: The subjects and objects of History.

"The position for which I have always striven is this, that history is past politics, that politics are present history. The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of an organized society, governed according to law. History, in any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind. Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are materials for history, materials of which the historian makes grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch, sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all other things are secondary, is man as the member of a political community. Rightly to understand man in that character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the developments, that political society has taken. Effects have to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those needful processes if we confine our studies either to the political societies of our own day or to political societies on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all circumstances under which we have any means of studying it. … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the working of like causes, still the two results can never be exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself takes its place among the causes of the later result. Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from small occasions. {1649} A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its place among determining causes. In any large view of history, we must always be on our guard against either underrating or overrating the actions of individual men. History is something more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand, that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them, can direct the course of history according to their own will and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man has some influence on the course of history."

E. A. Freeman, The Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 207-215.

HISTORY: The Philosophy of History

"The philosophy of history is not a something separate from the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not something separate and distinct from, something over and above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation. He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character it has, and what its relation is to the general development of humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as reason and research can ascertain. History always participates in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected according to some real or supposed principle either of efficient or final causation."

R. Flint, Philosophy of History, introduction.

HISTORY: The possibility of a Science of History. Mr. Buckle's theory.

"The believer in the possibility of a science of history is not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that, therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the results—in other words, all the changes of which history is full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena. These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled by external agents, developing itself according to the conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men, exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring. The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method of discovering the laws of this double modification."

H. T. Buckle, History of Civilization in England, chapter 1.

"Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which others have incidentally broached under some formula about 'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others, as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a comprehensive historical exposition. … {1650} He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will and predestination, that both are in a great degree 'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people, age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which he had not created. He had learned from one and another master to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material and technical conditions and such traditions and contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A = a + x this a includes all the elements which 'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty, thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each individual case of the kind has its history, how often a touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A = a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man will think of denying that the statistical method of considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists' definitions concerning intellectual property."

J. G. Droysen, Outline of the Principles of History pages 62-64 and 77-79.

HISTORY: History as the root of all Science. Lost History.

"History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits, unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable, in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old, are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not: but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads, with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the White, lives between two eternities, and warring against Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united, with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning, conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom, and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men, you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what they have thought, which indeed were often a very small matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen, which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon. For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which; therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies. But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest innovator, which was the more important personage in man's history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze. {1651} Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens, are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves, political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists, of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well may we say that of our History the more important part is lost without recovery."

_T. Carlyle, On History (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._

HISTORY: Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

"But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from the Present, if there are no institutions in the present answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example, in England at the present time, how then are we to understand a state of Society of which they were a component element? The answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and other sources the broad historical facts, the form of Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the husks with which the historians have furnished us."

J. B. Crozier, Civilization and Progress, page 35.

HISTORY: The Moral lessons of History.

"Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day; and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived, but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

J. A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, pages 27-28.

HISTORY: The Educational and Practical value of History.

"It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can give them. You will find that few practices do more to elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

W. E. H. Lecky, The Political Value of History, pages 47-49.

"He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value. This is the essential reason why the study of history is so important an element in the work of improving the judgment, and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger interests of communities and states. It is a study of humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists. The student of history surveys the relations of life in essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical method is the method that must be used in the common affairs of everyday life. {1652} The premises from which the man of business has to draw his conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain. The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this method of studying men that the historical student has to use. His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why the study of history is so necessary a part of a good preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship. Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be said that the most important elements of success are the same in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been, from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism. It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may be in himself."

C. K. Adams, A Manual of Historical Literature, pp. 15-16.

"To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as regards the training of the study and the information attained in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities; it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all; beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose, beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it has something of the preciousness of everything that is clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value analogous to the value of science; a value as something that is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of knowing something that the world does not know,—that doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with every step of investigation new points of view open out, and new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages, new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science, in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to classification, on the generalisations of which we may formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are far more diversified and less reducible than any other phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life, in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the roll of sciences."

W. Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, lectures 1 and 4.

"There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another; and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are, without superstition, without imposture, without error, and without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all mere amusement or even information that we may gather from it."

J. S. Brewer, English Studies, page 382.

{1653}

"To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History. Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon, and for this purpose no study is its equal."

W. P. Atkinson, On History and the Study of History, page 107.

HISTORY: The Writing of History. Macaulay's view.

"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions. Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters, at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions. He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as contracted as if they had never stirred from their own market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire. But the scale on which he represents them is increased or diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be described, but will be made intimately known to us."

_Lord Macaulay, History (Essays, volume 1)._

HISTORY: The Writing of History. Truthfulness in Style.

"That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets, of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith in any narration is much influenced by the personal appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must look into that well before you can know what faith to give him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical, vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it, sad work they make between them of the memories of former days."

Sir A. Helps, Friends in Council, volume 1, pages 199-200.

HISTORY: Historical Romance and Romantic History. Sir Walter Scott.

"The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the historical romance has made to the stories of elevated literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the composer; because they were confined to one circle and class of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out, and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of history were exhausted, and that modern story would never present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote 'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through the clouds."

_Historical Romance (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845)._

{1654}

"Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

_G. H. Lewes, Historical Romance (Westminster Review, March, 1846)._

"The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period, at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct interests and conditions, two nations, a double language, customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places the world which does and always will exist, that is to say, human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England than in the philosophically false compilations which still possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,' and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

_A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc., essay 9._

"We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought history home to people who would never have looked into the ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators. Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great personages of history were after all men and women of flesh and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical literature there is visible the effort to make history more personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again in his essays, and which at last he realized with such wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the most famous of a large group of writers who have been possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history. And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it. Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like romance, so history when it is studied in original documents looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which historians have accustomed us to."

_J. R. Seeley, History and Polities (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879)._

HISTORY: How to study History.

"The object of the historical student is to bring before his mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three things carefully, the historical student carries away an impression of his period which will never be effaced."

_Prof. A. B. Hart, How to Study History (Chautauquan, October, 1893)._

HISTORY: The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

"When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen, and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience. Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them is universal history, the general course of the history of the world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more important for the consideration of any human being than the knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to know how affairs came into that position. Besides the satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in the character of the community. {1655} Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria, and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is taken as a subject under certain conditions in the Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient, mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the student did know, and still more at what he was expected to know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic march of human events and the preparation for any future course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few English boys or even English men have any notion of their centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C. or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B. D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar answer."

O. Browning, The Teaching of History in Schools (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series, volume 4).

HISTORY: The Importance of Local History.

"From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded that one of the best introductions to history that can be given in American high schools, and even in those of lower grade, is through a study of the community in which the school is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his native country best.' The best students of universal history are those who know some one country or some one subject well. The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are historically the ways by which men have approached national and international life. It was a preliminary study of the geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to establish the new science of comparative geography. He says: 'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the district where we live. … American local history should be studied as a contribution to national history. This country will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm of state life. And some day this country will be studied in its international relations, as an organic part of a larger organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely developing through the operation of economic, legal, social, and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American history in its widest relations is not to be written by any one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow with the nation and with its developing consciousness of internationality. The present possibilities for the real progress of historic and economic science lie, first and foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and practical historians, who realize that history is past politics and politics present history; secondly, in the expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power in these days of growing centralization. National and international life can best develop upon the constitutional basis of local self-government in church and state. … If young Americans are to appreciate their religious and political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth. They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught to see in the town common or village green a survival of that primitive institution of land-community upon which town and state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. … It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development of historical science in America if teachers in our public schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils with special reference to the local environment. … A multitude of historical associations gather around every old town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of information more authentic than tradition, and yet often entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe, or even with the presidents of the United States. These subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of greater interest and vitality. {1656} The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the world is from a local environment through widening circles of interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study of the community in which the student dwells will serve to connect that community not only with the origin and growth of the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the German fatherland, with village communities throughout the Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome; from these classic lands to Persia and India."

H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2), pages 16-21.

----------HISTORY: Start--------

HITCHITIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

HITTITES, The.

The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war. Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized and powerful nation and played a more important part in the early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed. Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is conjectured that these people were originally from the Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

A. H. Sayee, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 5.

"We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north. Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful, and there was always a refuge among them for those who were oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject provinces were consolidated together under a central authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented the organised union of numerous states and nations under a single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact, empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief. If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean, and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this period lingered on into classical days."

A. H. Sayee, The Hittites, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: _W. Wright, The Empire of the Hittites._

See, also, AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

HIVITES, The.

The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the Israelites invaded it.

See AMALEKITES.

HLÆFDIGE.

See LADY.

HLAFORD.

See LORD.

HLUDWIG.

See LOUIS.

HOARD. HORDERE.

See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER), PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

The great battle which English historians name from the village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the neighboring town of Hochstadt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

----------HOCHSTADT: End--------

{1657}

HODEIBIA, Truce of.

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

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268; and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

HOHENZOLLERN: Rise of the House of.

"Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name 'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls. Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper 'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known: That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its 'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable way ever since."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 5.

"The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 3, chapter 12, section 1.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND: The country and its Name.

See NETHERLANDS.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1430. Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477. The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491. The Bread and Cheese War. End of the Party of the Hooks.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494. The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome. Friesland detached.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609. The Austro-Spanish tyranny. Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660. Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747. Wars with England and France.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746. The restored Stadtholdership.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810. French invasion and conquest. The Batavian Republic. The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte. Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL); 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY); and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814. Independence regained. Belgium annexed. The kingdom of the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813; FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE); and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832. Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands. Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HOLOCAUST.

"The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by the ancient Greeks.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, page 60.

----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866. The Schleswig-Holstein question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862; and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866. Annexation to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

----------HOLSTEIN: End--------

HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

"The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar, without attaching much importance to what he did. … The emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du verbiage.' {1658} Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance, with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance of the good understanding between the powers who had put down Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the 20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of repression."

M. E. G. Duff, Studies in European Polities, chapter 2.

The text of the Treaty is as follows:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective States, and in their political relations with every other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have agreed on the following Articles:—

Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between the said Governments or between their Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of which they and their people form a part, has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act, and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815, 14/26th September."

"It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

E. Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.

"The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received a letter declaring that his principles had the personal approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

C. A. Fyffe, History of Modern Europe, volume 2, chapter 1.

"Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as 'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements, and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects. Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein approved. He exerted his influence over each of them separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were governed. {1659} In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm, sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State. But the central figure in his perspective was always himself, whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,' he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the spiders only because they die naturally so young that they have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared. The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish Inquisitors had for heretics."

W. R. Thayer, The Dawn of Italian Independence, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a regularly organized police, it then consisted of a confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose, transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of 1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. … In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile, and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom; and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case, against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the highways or in the open country, and in cities by such offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape; and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of 18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman, whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the villages through which he was supposed to have passed were sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood, stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in 1498, the objects for which it was established having been completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed. The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate functionaries were retained for the administration of justice, over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name, dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with various modifications of form, down to the present century."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, section 1, with foot-note, and part 1, chapter 6.

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

HOLY LEAGUES: Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE: Its origin.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

Its extinction.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret, and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh. The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as Holyrood House."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 20 (volume 2).

The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone," by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.' … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted, whether they present substantially the character of what may be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a far greater amount of information than is to be found in any other literary production of the same compass. In the second place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they became such as in later times we know them. … And this picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an age been so completely placed upon record. … We are … probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. … It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this belief involves the further proposition that the poet was severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an historical character. … The question … has to be decided … by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack. … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at, or till long after, the period of their composition; and that works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written characters, could not have been transmitted through a course of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at a later date."

W. E. Gladstone, Homer (Literature Primers), chapters 1-2.

{1661}

"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition that when they were composed the revolution in question had not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

A. M. Clerke, Familiar Studies in Homer, chapter 1.

"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city 'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the poems describe was one which really existed in the place where they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains the question of the historical basis which may underlie the story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition, and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical view."

W. Leaf, Companion to the Iliad, introd.

"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian, Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far from the coast on which these three names were attached to successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the seat of Achæan empire."

_D. B. Monro, Homer and the Early History of Greece (English Historical Review, January, 1886)._

"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B. C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia, and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out; and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and Ionian society."

R. C. Jebb, The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry, page 14.

_R. C. Jebb, Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey._

"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity, the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient, demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the 'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

A. Lang, Homer and the Epic, chapters 7 and 13.

HOMERITES, The.

See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

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

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the Battle of Humbledon.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

----------HONDURAS: Start--------

HONDURAS: Aboriginal inhabitants. Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502. Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524. Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871. Separation from Spain and independence. Brief annexation to Mexico. Attempted federations and their failure. The British colony.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

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

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842. Ceded to Great Britain.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423. Honorius I., Pope, 625-638. Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130. Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227. Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated with the general body of the county or counties in which it lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

HOOD, General John B. The Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA), and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

Transfer to Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354; also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

HOPLITES.

Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land. They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, introduction, section 4.

F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim and the Anakim.

Manual of Ancient History, book 6, chapter 1.

See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz, in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape. Discovered by Drake (1578).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES. HOSPITES. HOSPITIUM.

"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal. … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. … The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. … The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their descendants might recognise each other. This token, called 'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of the whole community."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 3.

----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights: A. D. 1115-1310. The origin and rise of the order.

"Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East, had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability, to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour. Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant; his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from the monastery. {1663} They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

T. Keightley, The Crusaders, chapter 2.

To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which characterized the Knights of St. John during all their subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms and form a military body for service in the field against the enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly, the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank, and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order spread and the number of its members and convents increased, it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or 'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged; but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground. … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 3-6.

ALSO IN: Abbe de Vertot, History of the Knights Hospitallers, books 1-3 (volume 1).

A. Sutherland, Achievements of the Knights of Malta, chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310. Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

"The most important conquest of the time … was that of Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, both from its durability and from the renown of the conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences, besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb, the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes. So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The little realm they governed as an independent state consisted of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos, Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus, and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still overhang the sea."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482. Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522. Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail, appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of 5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous juncture. {1664} No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian, with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church, exhorted the contending powers to forget their private quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I. of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish, and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to the infidels."

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _C. Torr, Rhodes in Modern Times, chapter 1. _

J. S. Brewer, The Reign of Henry VIII., chapter 10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565. Occupation of Malta. Improvement and fortification of the island. The great siege. The Turks repelled.

"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's] predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he not only relieved himself of all further expense on its account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It was not very long before the wilderness before them was to blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily. Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications, which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000 men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair, strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000 men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board, independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries, was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the Spaniards at Gelves.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. … The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand episodes of war in the 16th century. {1665} The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men, and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults. After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was … concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta. … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than 30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500 soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and children,—are said to have perished."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapters 2-5.

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 13.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879. Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest and affluence produced gradually their usual consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The 'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long years, in which there were no events to bind them together in united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789 the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

W. Tallack, Malta, section 8.

"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000 troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of taking up arms against their country, and declared that he would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of France, and all the knights were required to quit the island within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19, taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly obtained possession of the island, which has ever since remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master, Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had for some time been protector of the Order. This election was undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St. Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff, Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. … {1666} [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.' In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting hospitals."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 20.

----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

HOSPODAR.

"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin = Lord)."

J. Samuelson, Roumania, page 209, foot-note.

HOSTIS.

See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, and A. D. 1486-1806; also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH; and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D. 1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at their head."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2, and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

Naval Victory (1794).

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

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE); 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY, Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

HUGUENOTS. First appearance and disputed origin of the name. Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562. Ascendancy in Navarre.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565. Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida. The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598. The Wars of Religion in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599. The Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622. Their formidable organization and political pretensions. Continued desertion of nobles. Leadership of the clergy. Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626. Renewed revolt. Second Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628. Revolt in alliance with England. Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle. End of political Huguenotism in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680. Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698. The climax of persecution in France. The Dragonnades. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The great exodus.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710. The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

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

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax, after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 12.

See, also, WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the 'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred, which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar, has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to the host; as representing the original settlement of the hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar to English history, and the same result may have followed from very different causes as probably as from the same causes, here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds, we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake court, was held every month; it was called six days before the day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial court leet."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see, for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred flourished and became the political unit, like the township in New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it was also the representative district. … The hundred had also its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this day."

J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, chapter 4, section 1.

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The Hundred Days.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

HUNGARIANS, The.

"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks, who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the most important of the western branches are the Finns and Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842. They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language; but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe, the description given of them by an old chronicler of the ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

Dr. W. Smith, Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55.

"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions being against it. Hence it is just possible that a whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.

"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror'; and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: A. J. Patterson, The Magyars, volume 1, chapter 1.

{1668}

HUNGARIANS: Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors, and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The country which they prepared to take possession of, and the central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers. Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century. The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of these new neighbours."

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 1, chapter 1.

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924. Ravages in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955. Repulse from Germany.

"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who, in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that, unless they were true to each other, their religion and country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in eight legions, according to the division of provinces and tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians]. … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the hope of mercy."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire chapter 55.

ALSO IN: W. Menzel, History of Germany, chapter 135 (volume 1).

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 2, pages 656-665.

A. W. Grube, Heroes of History and Legend, chapter 8.

----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

HUNGARY: Ancient.

See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY: The Huns in possession.

See HUNS.

HUNGARY: The Avars in possession.

See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114. Christianization of the Magyars. Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope. Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was never again able to cross, and even within these limits the Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. … Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity, and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her influence in favour of her religion. {1669} She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the 'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague, continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella, daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances, Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom, and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but, however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary, still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books. His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in 1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. … The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114] was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns, Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria in later times."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapters 5-6.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096. Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301. The Golden Bull of King Bela. Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars. The end of the Arpad dynasty.

"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who, after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II. ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by several important events. Having entirely reduced Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the German settlers received from the king a separate district, being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III., and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice. More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the throne in 1205. … {1670} Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions of this charter were as follows:

1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being previously tried and legally sentenced;

3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the property of the nobles;

4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

The most important point, however, was article 31st, which conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who, after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290, was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary. Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St. Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples, who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 1, chapter 2.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285. Wallachian struggle for independence.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442. The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg. Conquests of Louis the Great. Beginning of wars with the Turks. The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia, Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382). {1671} This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia, which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who reigned only two years."

_C. W. Koch, The Revolutions of Europe, period 5._

"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly, Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter, to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though 40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary. He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown. … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet, before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne, forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king; while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations were now adopted respecting the military system of the kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth. … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth, was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of the arrangement that had been made; and the news having arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army. … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna, carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th, 1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over the Turks gave him enormous influence."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, introduction (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364. Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386. Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444. Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458. The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus. Regency of Huniades. His defeat of the Turks and his death. His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother Casimir. {1672} The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia; and the administration during his minority vested in two Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor, and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous; he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna; but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation; the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna; whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm. … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle, were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to 30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions. Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who were as much the idols of their country as they were objects of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter, Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457]. Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI., whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for 40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him in a war with the new King of Hungary."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 28 (volume 2).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444. Wallachia taken from the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471. King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487. The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the Turks. Conquest and occupation of Austria.

Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers, Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia, he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of 100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch. {1673} Having in consequence of these successes delivered his dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown." Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria. "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube, as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz, and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded, when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in 1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the small force at his command, could only retard the progress of the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted to retain possession of the conquered territories, until Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 18 (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526. Death of Matthias. Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of Jagellon. Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia. Loss of the Austrian provinces. Treaty of Succession with Maximilian. Insurrection of the Kurucs. Loss of Belgrade. Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs. The end of Hungarian independence.

"When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias, who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50, without having arranged anything definitely for the future of his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St. Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate. Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, … whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in which the king disposed of the country without consulting the diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save, and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. … To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves, as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion. {1674} The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia, captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300 cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory, archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that then the main body of his troops should close around them. When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat. They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain; seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended with Louis II."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 3.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567. Election of John Zapolya to the throne. Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria. Zapolya's appeal to the Turks. Great invasion by Soliman. Siege of Vienna. The sultan master of the greater part of the country. Progress of the Reformation. Soliman's last invasion.

"No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh, under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria, far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state, was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet, which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition, first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war. Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers. His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the surrounding country terribly ravaged. {1675} Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is "an epoch in the history of the world."]

_Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 9. _

… Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf; but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein, which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust. Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally, became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country, began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand, aware of these circumstances, marched an army into Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons. Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria; Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son, got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor, although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In 1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth, by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny. These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of 20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a sudden death."

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: R. W. Fraser, Turkey, Ancient and Modern, chapters 12-13.

{1676}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604. Successive disturbances in Transylvania. Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and consequent revolt. Religious persecutions of Rodolph. Successful rebellion of Botskai. Continued war with the Turks.

John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed, and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch, with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place, for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori, who had acted with great reputation as the general and minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice. … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later, the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter crown fell to him the following year, when his father died. Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father, and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance. "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance. He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures, which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony. This feudal establishment gradually extended along the frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed, at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats, Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. … Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines, with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, … Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and, dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the reins of government before he liberated himself from the galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. … The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. … By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill; uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople. Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet, the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596, at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau, and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action. But this year, though little distinguished by military events, was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension." {1677} The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion, but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then placed under the government of the imperial general Basta. "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks. Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for, before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania, Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and indifference; and the German troops being free from control, filled the country with devastation and pillage. While, however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him]. … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh; at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and Novigrad."

W. Coxe History of the House of Austria, chapters 38-42 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Protestant Church in Hungary, chapters 12-20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606. The Turkish war. Great defeat at Cerestes. The Peace of Sitvatorok.

'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa, had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk, Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund, advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October 23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund were flying for their lives, without a single Christian regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. … Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence. The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in the territorial possessions of either party, except that the Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty, and that province became to some extent, though not entirely, independent of the Ottoman Empire."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 12.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660. The Pacification of Vienna. Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt. Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged, by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna," restored the religious toleration that had been practised by Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated that on the failure of his male issue these territories should revert to the House of Austria. {1678} "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the divisions into which it had been split up by the various factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers, was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania 736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606, and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke Mathias, came to a head.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states. Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia, which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real property in the country. The peace of the country was soon disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not, however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai, by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in 1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years' War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia. "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained considerable advantages over two generals of ability and reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length, according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau, Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000 men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force, captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close. The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his soldiers.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

… The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in 1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III. Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849. {1679} No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution; nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend it."

E. L. Godkin, History of Hungary, chapters 15-17.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664. Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary. The battle of St. Gothard. Liberation of Transylvania. A twenty years truce.

"Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there; Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the present master. … Religious distrust also complicated political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia, remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope, replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine; that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting men, invaded the country between the Danube and the Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on condition that the Diet should decide, before separating, certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000 Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes, asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins tribute."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 62 (volume 2).

{1680}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683. Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression. Tekeli's revolt. The Turks again called in. Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna. Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence and devastations of the generals and the German administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province. The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared not even the families of the most illustrious; several magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men, defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions, which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier] determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians, Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of 1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

S. Menzies, Turkey, Old and New, book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1).

"The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It is probable that not less than half a million of men were set in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha, at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear. The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to the progress of the relieving army through the difficult country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers. Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill, and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march, had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down which Sobieski and his troops were advancing. {1691} In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in Europe."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 16.

"It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph of their cause would have consoled few for their individual destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other, and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not stand neutral."

H. E. Malden, Vienna, 1683, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: G. B. Malleson, The Battle-Fields of Germany, chapter 9.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687. End of the insurrection of Tekeli. Bloody vengeance of the Austrian. The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary, Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in the male line of the house of Habsburg."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699. Expulsion of the Turks. Battle of Zenta. Peace of Carlowitz.

After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684, the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685 they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran, which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145 years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons." Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence, and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688, what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years little progress in the war was made on either side; until Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and wrought a speedy change in the military situation. {1682} The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September 11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners. Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations. Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies. Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here, after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz, Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava, Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea, and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

G. B. Malleson, Prince Eugene of Savoy, chapters 2 and 4.

ALSO IN: Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 17.

See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League" against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718. The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression. The Treaty of Szathmar. Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks. Peace of Passarowitz.

"The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was considerably increased by the general policy continually pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold, the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy were ready to second any measure of the government, provided they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot became master of the greater part of the country. Then there occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from France, and France failed them; they had expectations from Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710 Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising, besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated. Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency, had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance, which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. … After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note, lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be seen, to his own destruction. {1683} After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year 1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army. The present campaign paved the way for the peace of Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 2, chapter 5-6.

ALSO in: L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 4.

See, also, TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1739: Belgrade restored to the Turks.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740. The question of the Austrian Succession. The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741. Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession: Faithlessness of Frederick the Great. His seizure of Silesia.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741. The War of the Austrian Succession: Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790. Irritations of the reign of Joseph II. Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

"The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars. With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal principles in substituting German, and that language took the place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II. Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat' of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II. the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active part—all helped to create discontent."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapters 23 and 28.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791. War with the Turks. Treaty of Sistova.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844. The wakening of the national spirit. Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

"The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed freely … and their first act was to enter into a league against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in connexion with subsequent events. {1684} It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no private individual has ever acquired over a people, except, perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first object to which his attention was directed was the restoration of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen. Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and official documents, and German and French were alone used in good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage, made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party, which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts, formally to recognize the independence of the country, and promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the London clubs. He next turned his attention to the establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He … rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part, went over to England, studied the principles of the steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles, the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the commercial code and of internal communication, and though last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any practical result. The next meeting was for a long time delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course, but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled. He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly abstained from taking any part in public affairs. {1685} On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth, named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing. He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

E. L. Godkin, History of Hungary, chapter 21.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849. The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

"A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor. The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous, was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue, all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats, began to make separate demands, and to show themselves stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky, they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was great, for these insurgents called the constitutional government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned, and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very different matter, since the constitutional government there had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men. Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed, the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians, though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849, and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube out of the country."

C. M. Yonge, Landmarks of Recent History, chapter 3, part 5.

"On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions, but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government. For a while the national army was victorious. … But the despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in Hungary.' {1686} … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth, was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of 300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,' the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted, and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing influence of time, and still more of that great work of reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has effected between the two countries."

Francis Deak, Hungarian Statesman: a memoir, chapter 14.

See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850. Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by the United States. The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859. Completed Emancipation of the peasantry. Restoration of pure absolutism.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868. Recovery of nationality. Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty against the political offenders, and in the following year he decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859 other concessions were made, notably as to provincial Governments in Hungary, and they were given free administration as to their educational and religious rites in the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated, and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however, did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria presided for so many years. The final result of this was that a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect freedom and independence as to the administration of its affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as follows:

I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for Finance.

II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President of the Council.

III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of 353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both cases by direct election.

IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian and Hungarian Legislatures.

V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of disagreement between the two Delegations the question of policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written messages; drawn up in the official language—German or Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of the Delegation to which it is addressed.

VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate. The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually, the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs, the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues, to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter, that whilst the appointment to the military command of the whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary, is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the Hungarian Legislature.

{1687}

IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation, currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties, subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with their own special interests.

X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: Francis Deak: a memoir, chapters 26-31.

Count von Beust, Memoirs, volume 2, chapter 38.

See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887. Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1894. Death of Kossuth.

Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of 1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national demonstration of respect.

----------HUNGARY: End--------

HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458; and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNINGEN, Battle of.

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

HUNKERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

----------HUNS: Start--------

HUNS, Gothic account of the.

"We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women, whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul, emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing only the shadow of human speech by way of language. … Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity they apply to every male child that is born among them. … They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered, good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and always holding their heads high in their pride."

Jornandes, De Rebus Geticis, translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 1.

HUNS: First appearance in Europe.

See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

HUNS: A. D. 433-453. The empire of Attila.

After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had halted in their march westward for something more than a generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute, and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps. … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts, their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy, and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him. Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and preserve, in which men and their works should supply the objects and zest of the chase."

R. W. Church, Beginning of the Middle Ages, chapter 1.

{1688}

"He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a century before."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 7 (volume 1).

"The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts is not to be easily matched in the history of our race. Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat. The impression left upon us by what history records of him is that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His own personal government, if government it can be called, may very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the modern Hungary and Transylvania."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

"As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled into a huge village."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 34.

HUNS: A. D. 441-446. Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war. "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair, and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium, its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes. Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of 6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an annual tribute."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

HUNS: A. D. 451. Attila's invasion of Gaul.

In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war. The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of Orleans."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 35.

Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius, who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western Empire, had brought about a general combination of the barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too, and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city were already crumbling under his battering rams when the banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere within the wide extent of what were anciently called the Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D. 451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued Europe from the all-conquering Tartar. {1689} The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000; according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun. As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

"It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he was most widely and most fearfully known."

Sir E. Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, chapter 6.

HUNS: A. D. 452. Attila's invasion of Italy.

In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he set his host in motion again, directing its march to the Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich, was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. … When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses may have been left standing, and others must have slowly gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow. … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua), Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the world? This was the great question that was being debated in the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the Appennines, but not beyond.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 35.

See, also, VENICE: A. D. 452.

HUNS: A. D. 453. Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year 453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns; but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in the barbarian world."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

"Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak, Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser Scythia.' {1690} Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended kings of the Ostrogoths."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

HUNS: Attila in Teutonic legend.

"Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila, before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled, with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre. Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of his real might can be detected only at rare intervals, fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

G. T. Dippold, Great Epics of Mediæval Germany, chapter 4.

----------HUNS: End--------

HUNS, The White.

"It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200, had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila. … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 14.

"We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a name which they derived from the change of their complexion, soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which, under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

E. Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.

The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

HUNTER, General David. Command in Kansas.

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

Emancipation Order.

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

Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

HURON, Lake: Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

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

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

----------HURON, Lake: End--------

HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

HUSCARLS.

See HOUSECARLS.

HUSSARS.

Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in 1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign. Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the utmost speed, the most important of which was the establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the 'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, page 50.

HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.

{1691}

HUSTINGS. COURT OF HUSTING.

"The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen. The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies, according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,' in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term 'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts, usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling disputes between citizen and citizen."

_R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London._

HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638; and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas, and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

HWICCAS.

A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh. The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from the throne.

J. R. Green, The Making of England, pages 129-208.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

"The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. … Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo, was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over death itself.'

_G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, Note, book 9, section 7._

ALSO IN: E. Abbott, History of Greece, volume 1, page 222.

HYBLA.

"There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island, now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted. This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is now called Paterno."

E. A. Freeman, Story of Sicily, page 33.

HYDASPES, The.

The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab, on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 53.

HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB, English Wars with.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783; and 1785-1793.

HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD, The Nizam of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.

HY-IVAR, The.

See NORMANS. NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

HYKSOS, The.

See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

HYLLEANS, The.

"The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative, but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to have been known to the geographers only from mythological writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, volume 1, introduction.

HYMETTUS.

One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base, which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

M. and R. P. Willson, Mosaics of Grecian History, page 9.

HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

"As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan, their mutual ancestors."

T. D. McGee, Popular History of Ireland, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

HYPATIA.

See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.

HYPERBOREANS, The.

A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in the extreme north.

HYPHASIS, The. The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.

HYRCANIA. HYRCANIAN SEA.

"The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran] on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel to one another, having a general direction of east and west. … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani; and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains were celebrated by the ancient writers."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

"In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania] is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here, according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen grains without any special sowing."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.

See, also, PARTHIA.

{1692}

I.

IAPYGIANS, The.

See ITALY, ANCIENT; also, ŒNOTRIANS.

IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.

See LIMIGANTES.

IBERA, Battle at.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

IBERIANS, The eastern.

"The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of later writers. The name is found under the various forms of Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which have defied the destroying touch of time for more than twenty-four centuries."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, appendix 1.

See, also, ALARODIANS.

If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

IBERIANS, The western.

"The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of history. … These two races were in possession of Spain during the very earliest times recorded in history, the Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then, as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne, the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' … Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English invaders."

W. B. Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 2, section 5.

See CELTS; LIGURIANS; AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES; AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

IBERION.

See ALBION.

IBRAHIM, Caliph, A. D. 744.

Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

ICARIA, Attica.

One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making by Dionysus.

ICARIA, in the Ægean.

An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians, who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

----------ICELAND: Start--------

ICELAND: Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

See THULE.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100. Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen. A Norse Commonwealth. Development of the Saga Literature.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874. Political relations with Denmark.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

----------ICELAND: End--------

ICELANDIC "THING," The.

See THING.

ICENI, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

ICONIUM, Sultans of.

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

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.

"Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated. {1693} … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. … The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy, and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and indignation, he vented his fury against images and their worshippers, much more violently than before. For having assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae, who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images, in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary, according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV. being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to establish her authority, after entering into a league with Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors, together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople, were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground between the contending parties; for they decided, that images were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches, but that no religious worship could be offered to them without dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne, and forbid the worship of images."

J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 49.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1.

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 6.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ICTIS.

An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's Mount, is a disputed question.

IDA, Mount.

See TROJA.

----------IDAHO: Start--------

IDAHO: The Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

IDAHO: A. D. 1803. Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase? Grounds of American possession.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IDAHO: A. D. 1863. Organized as a Territory.

The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of Congress passed March 3, 1863.

IDAHO: A. D. 1890. Admission to the Union as a State.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

----------IDAHO: End--------

IDES.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

IDLE, Battle of the.

Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles, and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

IDOMENE, Battle of.

One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).

IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

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

IDUMEANS, The.

See EDOMITES.

IERNE.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

{1694}

IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

IGUALA, The Plan of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

IKENILD-STRETE.

See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ILA. ILARCH.

The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.

ILERDA.

Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

ILIAD, The.

See HOMER.

ILIUM.

See TROJA.

ILKHANS, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

ILLINOIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

ILLINOIS: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673. Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682. LaSalle's fort and colony.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735. The French occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750. The "Illinois country" under the French.

"For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan, and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south. The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the 'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their settlements were usually in the form of small, compact, patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around their old men and patriarchs."

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, volume 1, pages 181-183.

See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751. Settlements and population.

"Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their respective villages. These were:

1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five miles below the present site of St. Louis;

2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve miles above Kaskaskia;

4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the Mississippi River;

5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500 souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to 460 souls, in 1773."

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, volume 1, pages 167-168.

"The population of the French and Indian villages in the district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750, and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps, eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen families, except at the principal village, where there were three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all tribes."

J. Wallace, History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule, chapter 16.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763. Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763. The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765. Possession taken by the English.

"The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence, and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees, had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac, 'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries. Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn from another source, were occupied by about 110 French families, most of which were at Vincennes. {1695} Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan, an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois nations agreed that the English should take possession of all the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres, St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness, gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families, while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February 1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration of the British commander, already counted about twice that number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant territory, the government then instituted was the absolute rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 151-152.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774. Early years of English rule.

"Just before and during the first years of the English domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the wealthier and more influential families, removed with their slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis, which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana. … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois, excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand persons; and, during the entire period of British possession, the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained essentially French, with whom there was no taste for innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768. He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him, including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for an official investigation, claiming that he was able to justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment, became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774, Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not positively determined."

J. Wallace, History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule, chapter 20.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774. Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779. Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUEST.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784. Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and Polypotamia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786. Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787. The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809. Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

{1696}

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818. Admission into the Union as a State.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818; and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832. The Black Hawk War.

"In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes, by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60 years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement, which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers, and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River; and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50 prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and other chiefs."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: T. Ford, History of Illinois, chapters 4-5.

J. B. Patterson, editor, History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself. Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 10.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846. The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

----------ILLINOIS: End--------

ILLUMINATI, The.

See ROSICRUCIANS.

ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ILLYRIANS, The.

"Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices: moreover, they were always ready to sell their military service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing period of Grecian history."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 6.

ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

"The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 1.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.

IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

IMAMS. THE IMAMATE.

"When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so, and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the 'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting. They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was that the sovereign thus reigning should be a member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, part 3, chapter 1.

See, also, ISLAM.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY, Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

IMMORTALS, The.

A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

IMPEACHMENT: Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

{1697}

IMPEACHMENT: Revival of the right.

In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed. The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse, partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular power."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 13.

----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

IMPEACHMENTS: Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

President Johnson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)

Strafford.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

----------IMPERATOR: Start--------

IMPERATOR.

"There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however, equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. … But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power, and in this signification it was transmitted to his successors, without, however, suppressing the original import of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power, comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the name of the individual to whom it is applied."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 5.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 45-44.

IMPERATOR: Final Signification of the Roman title.

"When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they still distinguished their high station by the appellation of Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of 'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

----------IMPERATOR: End--------

IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY; and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia) GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.

IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

See INDICTIONS.

IMPERIUM, The.

"The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his fellow-citizens."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4).

IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

IMPORTANTS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

INCUNABULA.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Confederate capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

INDEPENDENCE HALL. The Liberty Bell.

The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House, which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed, except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special occasion opens its doors to the public. {1698} Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple, where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. … The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for the State House was imported from England. On the first trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in English America,' which now hangs in the old State House steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ: 'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

B. J. Lossing, Field-book of the Revolution, volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, volume I, chapters 15 and 17.

INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS: Their origin and opinions.

"The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that the disposition was manifested among them to break away from the church altogether, and to form communities of their own. And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the more sober part remained in the church. The communities of persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer of the duty of separation."

J. Hunter, The Founders of New Plymouth, pages 12-13.

"The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church was that of the voluntary association of believers into local congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted, this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused, until the true independency of each voluntary society of Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I believe, though with varieties of expression, English Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as they were called, had persisted in their course, through execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592, the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. … Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon, then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the most, a very small number of very silly and base people here and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished. Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast out."

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2.

"The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when, relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate, blasphemous, antichristian and accursed. {1699} To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect, and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7.

_L. Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches._

B. Hanbury, Historical Memorials of the Independents, volume 1.

G. Punchard, History of Congregationalism, volume 3.

H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years, lectures 1-5.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS: IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617. The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

"The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby." After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them, nonconformity began to assume among the churches more decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists. Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another important member of the Scrooby congregation was William Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth. It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized. Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began to think of following the example of former heretics and escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies, that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet: This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution, however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America. But they had come as an organized community, and absorption into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated. The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length been founded in Virginia."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: G. Punchard, History of Congregationalism, volume 1, chapters 12-15.

G. Sumner, Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series, volume 9).

A. Steele, Life and Time of Brewster, chapters 8-14.

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 17 (volume 2).

{1700}

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620. Preparations for the exodus to New England.

"'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,' hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in 1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and all civil authority derived from him, including the civil authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things, active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. … The London company listened very willingly to their proposal, so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and, through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion, to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied, being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.' Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the states general. The 'West India company was willing to transport them without charge, and to furnish them with cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends. The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a partnership between their employers and men of business in London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount, and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be divided among the share-holders according to their respective interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and in themselves, made ready for their departure."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620. The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

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

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649. In the English Civil War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA. The name.

"To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this country. To them for a long time the word India was for practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole region. For there is a very marked difference between the northern and southern parts of it. {1701} The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward. Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not a political name, but only a geographical expression like Europe or Africa."

J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, pages 221-222.

"The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe. … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the 'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. … The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the river.'"

E. G. Keene, Sketch of the History of Hindustan, page 1.

"Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river Sindus, instead of Indus."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1, note.

INDIA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

"Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage, speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India. The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for 'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000 years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own 'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines. One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed' gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.' The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills, in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes. The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products, mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons. Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped, small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of South-Western India, still keep up the old system of polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons, but to his sister's children. This system also appears among the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a large part of the population. In certain localities they amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.' Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black, undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes, therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in Lower Bengal. {1702} They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of the plains, and number about a million. Although still clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the village. … Until near the end of the last century, the Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. … The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about 100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life, but live in his house with their wives and children, and all share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family. … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world? Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us little. But from their languages we find that they belong to three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland which covers the southern half of India. Third, the Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful, loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian army, and lately covered themselves with honour in Afghanistan."

W. W. Hunter, Brief History of the Indian People, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN: R. Brown, Races of Mankind, volume 4, chapter 1.

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies, chapter 3.

See, also, TURANIAN RACES.

INDIA: The immigration and conquests of the Aryas. The hymns and prayers of their religion. Vedism. Brahmanism. Hinduism

"The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in very close connection with the language of the monuments of Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed. Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab. Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny, Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus. These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must have been settled there for centuries previously. For this reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas, whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e., 'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain with exactness the region in which the greater number of these poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise: the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks, we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of Iran. {1703} As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing … and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were not one civic community. They were governed by a number of princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus, others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but against each other."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4).

"When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the 15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship. It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in operation around them for production, destruction, and reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism, and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as something more than radiant beings, and something more than powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers, guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas). These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit language, at different times—perhaps during several centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis, and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or hymns were arranged in three principal collections or continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns, arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism. … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which, when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter); when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men, was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. … Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in this—that it takes little account of the primordial, impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu. Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. … Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians, and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering races, such as Islam and Christianity."

M. Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India, part 1, chapter 1, and introduction.

ALSO IN: _R. Mitra, Indo-Aryans._

_F. Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature._

F. Max Müller, editor, Sacred Books of the East, volume. 1, and others.

_A. Barth, Religions of India._

Rig-Veda Sanhita, translated by H. H. Wilson.

See, also, ARYANS.

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C. Invasion of Darius.

See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312. Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great. Expulsion of the Greeks. Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

"The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of the Punjab.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

… The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction, crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour. … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other, namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum; that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee. … When Alexander had fully established his authority in Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum, and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission. … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian Ocean. {1704} He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed, Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed. "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C. 323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos, and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole of Hindustan and the Punjab."

J. T. Wheeler, History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: Arrian, _Anabasis of Alexander (translated by Chinnock), books 4-6._

T. A. Dodge, Alexander, chapters 38-43.

INDIA: B. C. 312 Chandragupta and Asoka. The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

"The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar), extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about 312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent observer who was not a native, and this narrative of Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed. Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of their history are similar. He is probably the same as King Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,' or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west. What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with each other, yet they are very different from each other. Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God. Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or 'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it. The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'), at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are equal. {1705} … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity, and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all action;

5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute extinction of all being.

There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares. Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date, and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In other parts of India there was probably a period of Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution; but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted), and that it has not done so without having largely contributed towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the present day."

M. Williams, Hinduism, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: _M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams), Buddhism._

_H. Oldenburg, Buddha._

_P. Bigandet, Life and Legend of Gaudama._

_A. Lillie, Buddha and the Early Buddhists._

_W. W. Rockhill, The Life of the Buddha._

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290. Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

"Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob, the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways. The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent; worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure. Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A. D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times, inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj, Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known, but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A. D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river. Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat; and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy. {1706} But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,' accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem. Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' … Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested. The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal; the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement. … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan, under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son, Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched against them and met with a partial success. This turned into evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June 1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

H. G. Keene, Sketch of the History of Hindustan, book 1, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN: J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 4, part 1, chapter 2.

A. Dow, History of Hindustan (from the Persian of Ferishta), volume 1.

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398. From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

"In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion. Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre. Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter. Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam. The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name, and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated themselves on Korans. {1707} The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans. The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah. He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable; they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In 1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus. At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber, invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

J. T. Wheeler, Short History of India, part 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: M. Elphinstone, History of India: Hindu and Mahometan, book 6. chapters 2-3.

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399. Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

See TIMOUR.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605. The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties. The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

"The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus, in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat. Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. … Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as far eastward as the country immediately to the north of Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign, and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab; the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact, the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504), establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in 1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the 24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in 1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son, Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond of union or of common interest, except that which had been concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it, had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

G. B. Malleson, Akbar, chapters 4-5.

{1708}

Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran. Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and at the same time was deprived of the country from which his father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542). Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But, under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal. Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen. … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to 1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death, in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts, and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains, he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or viceroy, with full civil and military control."

W. W. Hunter, Brief History of the Indian People, chapter 10.

"I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did for the improvement of the country and the people of Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land, by dividing it into three classes, according to the productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce, and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole, they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to the rural population, by opening paths by which it might spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited, except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was derived rather from the personal character of the man than from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to perfect its internal economy."

J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Company, part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: 3 _W. Erskine, History of India under Baber and Humayun._

A. Dow, History of Hindostan, from Ferishta, volume 2.

J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 4, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580. Portuguese trade and settlements.

In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor' (or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives, chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory. Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native allies, had to fight desperately for their safety. {1709} They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504 large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place, and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval victory which once and for all firmly established the Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands, together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe, from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at the climax of their power in the east. The way in which Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e., China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon, bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade with other European countries in the goods they had brought back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch, English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions, hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

H. de B. Gibbins, History of Commerce in Europe, book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97).

ALSO IN: E. McMurdo, History of Portugal, volume 3, books 2-5.

_Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_E. Grey, Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_H. M. Stephens, Albuquerque._

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702. Beginnings of English trade. The chartering of the English East India Company. Its early footholds in Hindostan. The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. The three Presidencies.

"For some time it appears to have been thought by other European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands, aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of the new Company was not only renewed but rendered perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin, cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100 per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the decline of every other branch of trade and industry. {1710} But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges but vested in them authority, through their agents in India, to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said that the competition of these two Companies with the private traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam, from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the 'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. … In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to the East India Company, and became one of their principal stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and richness of that province, a proverb was already current among the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the English had established their factories at or near the town of Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders, and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul, on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras for its government. Thus then before the accession of the House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William, Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications, and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters from other services in India. Among these the descendants of the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope); History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 39 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: J. Mill, History of British India, book 1 (volume 1).

P. Anderson, The English in Western India, chapters 1-10.

_H. Stevens, editor., Dawn of British Trade to East Indies: Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603._

J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Company, chapters 3-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620. Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658. Jahangir and Nur Mahal. Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal. Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

"Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne, he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her, and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in 1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere, where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. … This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption], 'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th), he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja, Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor, who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra, with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial reconciliation took place between him and his son, who, however, did not release him from his confinement."

J. Samuelson, India, Past and Present, part 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 4, chapters 5-7.

Sir T. Roe, Journal of Embassy (Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

M. Elphinstone, History of India: Hindu and Mahometan, book 10.

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748. The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas. The Mahratta empire. Invasion of Nadir Shah. Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

"Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year 1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the standard of revolt against that government, introduced a spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In 1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle. This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and continued in a state of hostility more or less active during the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of regular government from that distracted portion of the country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died, and successors of less talent filled the throne of the robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat. Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns; … and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident indications of the gradual decline of the empire. {1712} During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706 the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in 1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia, which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad] of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. … The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000 to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

Tavernier's Travels, translated and edited by V. Ball, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in 1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which might be expected."

Leitch Ritchie, History of the Indian Empire, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province] erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still bears."

H. G. Keene, Madhava Rao Sindhia, chapter 1.

"The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able to discharge the most elementary functions of government in the preservation of life and property. In short, the people were scattered without a leader or protector; while the political system under which they had long lived was disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English first appeared upon the political arena in India."

Sir A. Lyall, Rise of the British Dominion in India, chapter 4, sections 1-2.

ALSO IN: S. Lane-Poole, Aurangzib, chapters 9-12.

A. Dow, History of Hindostan, from Ferishta, volume 3.

J. G. Duff, History of the Mahrattas, volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1.

C. R. Markham, History of Persia, chapter 12.

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743. Commercial undertakings of the French. Their settlement at Pondicherry.

"Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French] earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company, chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601. These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and their commander did not return to France for ten years. Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of which the most that can be said is that they met with no great disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely failed. The first operations of the French East India Company were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693, Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and discretion of its governors than to the home government. M. Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

J. Yeats, Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce, part 3, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: G. B. Malleson, History of the French in India, chapters 1-3.

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, chapter 2.

{1713}

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752. Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan. Clive against Dupleix. The founding of British empire.

"England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken out [1743] between France and England.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton, the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate, after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral, Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements, defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India for more than the next half century, only to meet on their return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais, who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9). News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being restored, with fortifications much improved. The English fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of interfering in the internal politics of the country. Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton, born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras, disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one, and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

J. M. Ludlow, British India, lecture 7.

"Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him. … At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably. They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any more than in the conception, of this first little war. We obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to claim both his throne and the richest province under his rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000 of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land. Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary, with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than a soldier. {1714} He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make their position worse; and they caught at every chance of making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers, commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men, only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege. … A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument, and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the native impression of the respective destinies of the French and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved, and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. … He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the way."

H. Martineau, History of British Rule in India, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: G. B. Malleson, History of the French in India, chapters 3-6.

G. B. Malleson, Founders of the Indian Empire: Lord Clive, chapters 1-6.

Colonel Sir C. Wilson, Lord Clive, chapters 2-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761. The Duranee power in Afghanistan. Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas. Great defeat of the latter at Panniput. Fall of the shattered Moghul empire. The state of things which invited British conquest.

On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee, who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul … and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun." Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747, invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan; disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief … incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest, with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace; proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi, Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his Vizir. {1715} Impatient at intelligence of these and some other transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies, contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict. Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action; confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the people of the country, who had suffered from their depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760 [1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of power to consider himself for one moment as master of the throne."

J. Mill, History of British India, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great historical events, and there is no event to which they have been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody, and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a mercenary force should be able to compete with other adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its competitors by bringing into the field English military science and generalship, especially when it was backed over and over again by the whole power and credit of England and directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh and rose to supreme power there."

J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, course 2, lecture 3.

ALSO IN: J. G. Duff, History of the Mahrattas, volume 2, chapters 2-5.

G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapter 8.

H. G. Keene, Madhava Rao Sindhia, chapter 2.

INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757. Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah. The tragedy of the Black Hole. Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel in the British army, received from the king, and returned to India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part of India possessed such natural advantages both for agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal. The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town, where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta. For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English, like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan, and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age, who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found. {1716} The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to fortify their settlement without special permission from the Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers. Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors. The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity, memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor, that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146. When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated; but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door. Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They trampled each other down, fought for the places at the windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed, blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted the door to be opened. But it was some time before the soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies, 123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William, forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley, and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and 1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of foreign countries that he often used to say that there were not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley. He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already disposed to make some concessions to the English, was confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory, and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled. Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as subordinate to his political designs."

_Lord Macaulay, Lord Clive (Essays)._

ALSO IN: Sir J. Malcolm, Life of Lord Clive, chapter 3 (volume 1).

J. Mill, History of British India, book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3).

H. E. Busteed, Echoes from Old Calcutta, chapter 1.

{1717}

INDIA: A. D. 1757. A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah. His overthrow at the battle of Plassey. The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund. Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who "thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement, which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit, and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general, Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier, Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper, a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier. Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory. Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has, for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their 2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns. Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander. Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to fight, without which departure from the opinion of the majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours. The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy. That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as himself."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 6, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: G. B. Malleson, Founders of the Indian Empire: Clive, chapters 8-10.

_G. B. Malleson, Lord Clive (Rulers of India)._

G. B. Malleson, Decisive Battles of India, chapter 3.

E. Thornton, History of British Empire in India, volume 1, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772. Clive's Administration in Bengal. Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh. English Supremacy established.

"The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate results of the victory were comparatively small, and several years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would admit the superiority of the British arms. {1718} For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive, again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. … At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents, with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D. 1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in 1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently established British influence throughout the Northern Circars, and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch, the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides private donations, the English received a grant of the three Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr. Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms [1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans, were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither respect were his plans carried out by his immediate successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of £600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual system of government, by which the English received all the revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767. {1719} Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in 1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company, distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal. Hastings may be said to have created a British administration for that Empire."

Sir W. W. Hunter, India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India) volume 4, pages 389-394.

ALSO IN: W. M, Torrens, Empire in Asia: How we came by it, chapters 4-6.

Sir C. Wilson, Lord Clive, chapters 7-9.

G. B. Malleson, Decisive Battles of India, chapter 7.

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761. Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic. The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

"In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry. It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally, who had been appointed Governor-General of the French possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St. David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9], and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December, 1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan, Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and he despaired of obtaining further help from the French. Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry. Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January, 1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris. … In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to immediate execution."

J. T. Wheeler, Short History of India, part 3, chapter 2.

"The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and decisive blow to French domination in India."

G. B. Malleson, History of the French in India, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: G. B. Malleson, Decisive Battles of India, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769. The first war with Hyder Ali.

"At this period, the main point of interest changes from the Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in India—Hyder Ali. {1720} He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir' or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. … Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline his troops according to the European models. The English at Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767 engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory, as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of 1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual restoration of conquests should take place, and that the contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources, they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of 1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 67.

ALSO IN: Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani, History of Hydur Naik, chapters 1-17.

L. B. Bowring, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, chapter 8.

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773. Climax of English misrule. Break-down of the East India Company's government. The Indian Act of Lord North.

"In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and it was estimated that more than a third part of its inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors were obliged to confess that the sum required for the necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The division between the Directors and a large part of the proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in England and those in India, the private and selfish interests of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great country by a commercial company was radically and incurably false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772, at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North, and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee, consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken. {1721} The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773, of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in 1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of £400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged to export to the British settlements within its limits British goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of £8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act, and to hold their offices for five years; after that period the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's correspondence with India relating to civil and military affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the service of the King or of the Company might receive presents, and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was completely subverted, and the government of India passed mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief management of affairs was vested in persons in whose appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. … Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell, Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four Councillors."

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

ALSO IN: J. Mill, History of British India, book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3).

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785. The First English Governor-General. Administration of Warren Hastings. Execution of Nuncomar. The Rohilla War. Annexation of Benares. Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

"The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home) had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place in which to follow the history of the first general council and its factions, apart from the consequences to British interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three out of four of the council (and those the new officials from England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, … eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin, and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that; and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob. Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman, and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings. {1722} Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death by the judges."

H. Martineau, British Rule in India, chapter 9.

"It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the course of a century it has been made the theme of historical, political, and biographical discussions; all the points have been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily, though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen, after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most skilful analysis, after examining every document and every fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs, the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political transactions, which are little understood and leniently condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the general motives of human action, the moral certainty that Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations, became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

Sir A. Lyall, Warren Hastings, chapter 3.

"James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present day, is known to English people in general only by the terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.' 'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen, believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his successor in office, and am better able than most persons to appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey, and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to the effect which his language produced. He did not know his own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the first matter which directed my attention to the subject was the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in the State Trials and his character as described by Lord Macaulay. {1723} There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the case has not suggested to me a single observation in Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it. Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the exhibits."

J. F. Stephen, The Story of Nuncomar, pages 2-3, 186-187.

"Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay. Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion. … 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population; and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But the fact that the corner of what geographically was our barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas. Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772, however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes, into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas, he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip the land they had conquered."

_The Spectator, April 2, 1892._

_Sir John Strachey, Hastings and the Rohillas._

"The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved. Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances, which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands. {1724} He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling, as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar, the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue, in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods, that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers were flocking into the city from his strong castle of Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers. Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. … Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham, bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty, amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors; and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing another object of his journey up the country."

L. J. Trotter, Warren Hastings, chapter 6.

"It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W. Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth, the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master, the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly protested against a transaction which he was powerless to prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest men may still hold different opinions. But on all the weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

_L. J. Trotter, Warren Hastings and his Libellers (Westminster Review, March, 1891)._

ALSO IN: W. M. Torrens, Empire in Asia: How we came by it, chapters 7-11.

_H. E. Busteed, Echoes from Old Calcutta._

_G. W. Forrest, The Administration of Warren Hastings._

G. R. Gleig, Memoirs of Warren Hastings, volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2.

INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783. The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

"The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all direct competition between the two nations in that country impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in 1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces, both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some instances hostile to his interest. {1725} As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the balance of power established by the rivalry between the British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible. Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of 1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst. At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including 30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of his principal officers acted with gross treachery or cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than 3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000 men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November. Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro, and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783, Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace, which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so many other great wars, neither of the contending parties gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of nearly four years."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 5).

"The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal, which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian government of that time could carry on a campaign by war loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers; and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the men, but also the chief political direction and military leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the calamities of the English in the western and southern Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius, could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the English position in India, had tested the firmness of its foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the only period in the long contest between England and the native powers, during which our position in India was for a time seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings. … Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary influence at a time when the great families and the House of Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial establishments, and at the same time to find money for carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans, so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England; the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years' trial before the House of Lords."

Sir A. Lyall, Rise of the British Dominion in India, chapter 11, section 2.

ALSO IN: Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani, History of Hydur Naik, chapters 27-31.

G. B. Malleson, Decisive Battles of India, chapter 8.

L. B. Bowring, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, chapters 14-15.

{1726}

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793. State of India. Extent of English rule. Administration of Lord Cornwallis. War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War). The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal, and its fruit.

"When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west, Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia, Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore, had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad were their dependent allies; they administered the country of the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office, however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken, in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was, however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which, notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the besieged. However, so wretched had been the English preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons, and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis, after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same (1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000 infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg, whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the whole island was carried and all preparations made for the siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded territory was divided between the allies, the Company obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out of war between England and the French Republic, the French settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He separated the connection of the revenues from the administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn. … He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

J. M. Ludlow, British India, lecture 9 (volume 1).

{1727}

"In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars were the only people that seemed available for the purpose, and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class, that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised, and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing the share of the produce or rental to which the State was entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent. Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. … The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government, Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in India, the amount now received by the State from the land in Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is given away in return for no service to the State or to the public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens. The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. … 'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings, all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments; and every five years there was to be filed in the public offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. … The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000; according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called £17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about £3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No portion of this increase has been due to the action of the zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,' it is this."

Sir J. Strachey, India, lecture 12.

ALSO IN: J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Co., part 2, chapter 2.

J. Mill, History of British India, book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5).

W. S. Seton-Karr, The Marquess Cornwallis, chapter 2.

Sir R. Temple, James Thomason, chapter 9.

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795. The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

"Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785, and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess the good opinion of my country." But underneath this superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords. On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court commenced. {1728} There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing strange characters from right to left. The High Court of Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares, and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment, the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law. Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together, from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the representatives of every science and of every art. … The Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies, had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later, successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr. Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded, contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty charges. On two only of these had even the case for the prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced, near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords. {1729} … Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. … It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on different principles, and that a man who had governed an empire during thirteen years might have done some very reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

_Lord Macaulay, Warren Hastings (Essays)._

"The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the standard which the English people would in future insist upon maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of loading him with curses and driving him away into the wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

Sir A. Lyall, Warren Hastings, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: E. Burke, Works, volumes 8-12.

Speeches of Managers and Counsel in the Trial of Warren Hastings, edited by E. A. Bond.

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805. The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley. Treaty with the Nizam. Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore. War with the Mahrattas. Assaye and Laswari. Territorial acquisitions.

"The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from 1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by surrendering their political independence. The history of India since his time has been but the gradual development of this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as 'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century, our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay. Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of faith. The time had arrived when the English must either become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily handled. {1730} Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by treaty not to take any European into his service without the consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu, whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in person, and to watch over the course of events. One English army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation. The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English. At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona, who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In 1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory, induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged himself to the British to hold communications with no other power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh [August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in 1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a series of operations against Holkar, which brought little credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an instance of a British army in India having to turn back with its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

W. W. Hunter, Brief History of the Indian People, chapter 13.

ALSO IN: W. H. Maxwell, Life of the Duke of Wellington, volume 1, chapters 2-12.

J. M. Wilson. Memoir of Wellington, volume 1, chapters 2-9.

G. B. Malleson, Decisive Battles of India, chapters 9-10.

_W. H. Hutton, The Marquess Wellesley._

J. S. Cotton, Mountstuart Elphinstone, chapter 4.

{1731}

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816. Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy. Sepoy revolt at Vellore. Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs. Conquest of the Mauritius. The Ghorka War.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us