History for ready reference, Volumes 1 to 5 (part 6 of 56)

History for ready reference, Volumes 1 to 5 (part 6 of 56)

"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10.

BUCCANEERS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

BUCENTAUR, The.

See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.

BUCHANAN, JAMES. Presidential Election And Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.

BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).

See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812; also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.

BUCKTAILS.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

BUDA: A. D. 1526. Taken And Plundered By The Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567. Taken by the Turks. Besieged by the Austrians. Occupied by the Sultan. Becomes the seat of a Pasha.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

BUDA: A. D. 1686. Recovery from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

BUDA: A. D. 1849. Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BUDA: End----------

BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872. Union Of The Cities.

Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left, were incorporated in 1872 into one city—Buda-Pesth.

BUDDHISM.

See INDIA: B. C. 312; also LAMAS. LAMAISM; and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

BUDGET, The.

"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view of the general financial policy of the government, and at the same time presents an estimate of the probable income and expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new ones it may be necessary to impose.—To open the budget, to lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and plans of the executive government."

Imp. Dict.

Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5) states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or 'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."

Athenæum, February 14, 1891, page 213.

{328}

BUDINI, The.

A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE); A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE); A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534. First and unsuccessful founding of the city.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

BUFFALO, New York: The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764. Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779. The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799. The founding and naming of the city.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812. At The Opening Of The War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813. Destruction by British and Indians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825. Opening of the Erie Canal.

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

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848. The National Free-soil Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1866. The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------

BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

BULGARIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.

See PAULICIANS.

BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."

Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding "the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths, twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the goods of the churches or their ministers."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 6.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.

BULL, Golden.

See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE; also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493. and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.

A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.

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

BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BULLA, THE.

See TOGA.

BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

BUNDES-STAAT.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

BURDIGALA.

The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7.

BURGAGE TENURE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BURGESS.

See BOURGEOIS.

BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.

See BOROUGH.

BURGOS, BATTLE OF.

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

BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BURGRAVES.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

BURGUNDIANS: Origin And Early History.

"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries, perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe, were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians—a warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has finally settled on a flourishing province. … The disputed possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity, as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine, and impatiently required the support and subsidies which Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation, they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just resentment."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{329}

"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul. They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that they were a most warlike race."

J. G. Sheppard, The Fall of Rome, lecture 8.

"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns (bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians, chapter 3.

"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following expression,—'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word 'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. … I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was probably, almost wholly political."

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section 12.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409. Invasion Of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451. Their Savoyan Kingdom.

"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than the province which was the cradle of the present royal house of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

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

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451. At The Battle Of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500. Extension Of Their Kingdom.

"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion, now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D. 500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534. Final Conquest By The Franks.

"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks. After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the obligation of tribute and military service; and the Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of Clovis."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------

BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752. The Merovingian Kingdom.

After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms (Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the north."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapter 13.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933. Divisions of the early kingdom. The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the northwest.

By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire. It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A. D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf, included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland between the Reuss and the Jura."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 6, and appendix, note A.

{330}

"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united, in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le Pacifique."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 24.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 4.

"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France, such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles, Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his [Conrad the Pacific's] states."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal System, chapter 2.

"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part, forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms mentioned above.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 6, section 1.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032. The French Dukedom. The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South (Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name, he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the throne."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4.

Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was divided between his children, who were yet very young. … There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was but the second son."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Carlovingians, chapter 15.

In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032. The Last Kingdom. Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above, by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however, the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor, Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal. Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany, and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 6-7.

{331}

"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We can still follow the formation of a great number of other feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their diplomas and their wills."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under the Feudal System, chapter 2.

See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378. The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone. End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D. 1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate. Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III. the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term in which they could strive to win back a real hold over Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother, Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so strong that their local interests made them enemies rather than friends of the extension of French power on their borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task. Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny, henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI. of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the theoretical claims of the Empire."

The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.

[Image: POSSESSIONS OF CHARLES THE BOLD, DUKE OF BURGUNDY, ABOUT 1475.]

{332}

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401. Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake Geneva.

See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364. The French Dukedom. The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December, 1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy (Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad, King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century had passed.

Froissart (Johnes) Chronicles, book 1, chapter 216.

ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 22.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383. Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453. Civil war with the Armagnacs. Alliance with the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419; 1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430. Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467. Charles The Bold. His Position, Between Germany And France. His Antagonism To Louis Xi. The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip, misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that, if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant, Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His dominions were large in positive extent, and they were valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably greater and more prosperous than those of France or England; and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths, acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord; Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money. So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his dominions were further removed than those of any prince in Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies, counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by different titles and of different overlords, speaking different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted according to different rules of succession. … They lay in two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low Countries forming the other, so that their common master could not go from one capital to another without passing through a foreign territory. {333} And, even within these two great masses, there were portions of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is carried on openly within the French territory, while in the second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a French prince, he joined with other French princes to put limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to call it, between the main divisions of European history and European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical position. They may be said to bind together the whole of European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France. From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle state between the two. Over and over again during that long period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. … That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a state which should hold a central position between France, Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy. … Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

_E. A. Freeman, Charles the Bold (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11)_.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468. The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois and his troubles with Louis XI.

"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since, secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons were the people who protected and entertained all his malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois, who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke (Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000 strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard, trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne, that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally assisting the latter to inflict it. {334} "After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken, and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also resolved to burn the city, which had always been very populous; and orders were given for firing it in three different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river, that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches (except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked thither to live with the priests."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2.

ALSO IN: J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2.

_P. F. Willert, The Reign of Louis XI._

_Sir W. Scott, Quentin Durward._

See, also, DINANT.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477. Charles The Bold And The Swiss. His Defeats And His Death. The Effects Of His Fall.

"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland, and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in order to join his northern states with those in the south. The conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura, besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine, despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy, which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers. It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss, in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world; besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect, with the help of the king of France and others. It was against the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong, half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater one, and he paid the penalty. {335} It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant, rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent, so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen this family in all respects the most flourishing and celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as regards both prince and subjects."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapters 1-9.

"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the Confederation. … The mere political accident that the country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The simple fact that it was only through the result of the Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own territory and the territory of his allies."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, volume 1, number 11.

ALSO IN: J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 5.

L. S. Costello, Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy, chapters 14-27.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477. Permanently restored to the French crown

Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable. Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females, and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned. But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful heirs, without designation of sex. The construction, therefore, must be left to the established course of law. This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through females. Such was this question of succession between Louis XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably, at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France." The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

{336}

"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely, not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which he might, without any great difficulty, have effected, considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in a firm and lasting peace."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapter 12.

"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all the great lords to come over to him."

J. Michelet, History of France, book 17, chapters 3-4.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482. Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands. Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

----------BURGUNDY: End----------

BURH, The.

See BOROUGH.

BURI, The.

A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb. Geographical notes.

BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.

See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.

BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

BURMA: Rise of the kingdom. First war with the English (1824-1826). Cession of Assam and Aracan.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BURMA: A. D. 1852. Second war with the English. Loss of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

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

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Deliverance of East Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. Defense of Knoxville.

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

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E. At the siege of Petersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA).

BURR, Aaron. Duel with Hamilton. Conspiracy. Arrest. Trial.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

BUSACO, Battle of (1810).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

BUSHMEN, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUSHWHACKERS.

A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits of the southwest in the American Civil War.

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 6, page 371.

BUSIRIS. Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

BUSSORAH AND KUFA, The rise and importance of.

In the first years of their conquest and occupation of Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah, or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates. "Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families, scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature, theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element, conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 18.

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BUTADÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. In command at Baltimore.

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

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. In command at Fortress Monroe.

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

{337}

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. The Hatteras Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. Command at New Orleans.

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

BUTLER, General Benjamin F. Command of the Army of the James.

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

BUTLER, Walter, The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).

BUTTERNUTS.

See BOYS IN BLUE;

Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BYRON, Lord, in Greece.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BYRSA. The citadel of Carthage.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYTOWN.

The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of Canada.

See OTTAWA.

BYZACIUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium (modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some discussion of these questions,

See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. Its part in history. Its defence of Europe. Its civilizing influence.

"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German nations did not combine with the Empire against the common foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those successes sink into insignificance by the side of the achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture. We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice, which contributed so much to the growth of western culture, was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when they needed men of learning, and thither students from western countries, who desired a university education, repaired. … It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts concerning which contemporary historians did not think of leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of western European history down to the present day—the idea of the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of 800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and the system which brought law and order into the political relations of the West."

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717. Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor [A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the whole administration so completely in accordance with the new exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire outlived for many centuries every government contemporary with its establishment. {338} The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised to mark the changes effected in the government, after the extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine government. The number of themes varied at different periods. The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The European provinces were divided into eight continental and five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus."

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

ALSO IN: _E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians (English History Review, April, 1893)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797. The Isaurian dynasty.

The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A. D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D. 802. It embraced the following reigns:

Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775; Leo IV., 775-780; Constantine VI., 780-797; Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751. The Iconoclastic Controversy. Rupture with the West. Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna. End of authority in Italy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors: Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811; Stauracius, A. D. 811; Michael I., A. D. 811-813; Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803. Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057. The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place; Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A. D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns:

Basil I., A. D. 867-886; Leo VI., A. D. 886-911; Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950; Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944; Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944; Romanus II., A. D. 959-963; Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969; John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976; Basil II., A. D. 963-1025; Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028; Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034; Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041; Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042; Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056; Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054; Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043. Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900; also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016. Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025. Recovery of prestige and territory.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine government—and its history is but a series of crimes and revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly, but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers, Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms (one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate. From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some part of Syria and Armenia."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 6.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014. Recovery of Bulgaria.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043; also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054. Ecclesiastical division of the Eastern from the Roman Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081. Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties. A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone, the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius. … The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals, who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses, and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071; Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078; Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.

C. W. C. Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire, chapter 20.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092. Disasters in Asia Minor.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and A. D. 1073-1092.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064. Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy Land.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081. The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085. Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged, moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks. Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu), and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery, and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of 1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem, lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards, his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1185. The Comnenian emperors.

Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118; John II., A. D. 1118-1143; Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181; Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183; Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097. The passage of the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146. Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily. Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions. His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead, and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors, secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet to labour at the oar. … {340} Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city, with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece. The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers in their original occupations. He consequently collected all their families together, and settled them at Palermo, supplying them with the means of exercising their industry with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148. Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204. The Angeli. Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195; Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203; Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204. Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders. Sack of Constantinople.

The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A. D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign, the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip, the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown. Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the 17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians, from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground, and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill, if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights, sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met. {341} A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy, burning without scruple—starting a third appalling conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The new emperor fled, the troops laid down their arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. … 'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal [Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city. Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver, of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.' … The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A large part of the booty had been collected in the three churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing for the art which had added value to the metal."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapters 14-15.

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204. Reign of Alexius V.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205. The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. … This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other, for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it. The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia. Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire. Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several smaller islands, also fell to his share."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 4, sections 1-2.

"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast, from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose sole umpire was the sword."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{342}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205. The political shaping of the fragments.

See ROMANIA. THE EMPIRE; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA; TREBIZOND; EPIRUS: NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387: ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456: SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453. The Greek restoration. Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall is told elsewhere.

See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453.

"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians. She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages which but for them would be bright with the things which were beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded, was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe. … The Byzantine people, although in every respect the superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. … The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial one great work in human history. That work was to preserve civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help. 'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed the classical world, the civilization of the ancients, modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine Empire, if it be true that this development is the common offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity upon the other."

_Demetrios Bikelas, The Byzantine Empire (Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886)._

----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------

BYZANTIUM, Beginnings of.

The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded, according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of the city to control the important corn supply which came from the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another many times during their wars.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478. Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440. Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408. Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340. Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336. Alliance with Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194. Siege by Severus.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267. Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323. Siege by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330. Transformed into Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE.

{343} C.

ÇA IRA: The origin of the cry and the song.

"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in 1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge reached France, many good friends to America began to think that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers, amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words. They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution, were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn appeared, had no equal in France."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 2, page 89.

L. Rosenthal, America and France, page 263.

"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

Century Dictionary.

"The original name of the tune to which the words were written is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

_J. Oxenford, Book of French Songs (note to "Ça ira")._

CAABA AT MECCA, The.

"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel. Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house' indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba. This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child on her knees, eventually found a place there."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 7, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Muir, Life of Mahomet, chapter 2.

CABAL, The.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH; also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.

CABALA, The.

"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or schools, whether on religious or civil points."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, volume 2, book 18.

"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of, but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true, occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala. And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional, no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala, ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity, became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred and affiliation."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 30.

CABILDO. The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.

CABINET, The American.

"There is in the government of the United States no such thing as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the term, not only because it is current in America to describe the chief ministers of the President, but also because it calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists between the great officers of State in America and the similar officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the President is that contained in the power given him to require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.' All these departments have been created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with four only, at the head of whom were the following four officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in 1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President, subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically never refused), and may be removed by the President alone. Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be placed in charge of a department, except that they are summoned by the President to his private council. None of them can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution providing that 'no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.'"

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 9.

{344}

"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX., numbers 1-2), chapter 10.

CABINET, The English.

"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy Council to which the law assigned many important functions and duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by degrees its character changed. It became too large for despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not till after the Restoration that the interior council began to attract general notice. During many years old fashioned politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it constantly became more and more important. It at length drew to itself the chief executive power, and has now been regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous that it has never since their time been used except as a term of reproach."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2.

"Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists, the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet system received the impression that it bears in our own time. … Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the language in which its deliberations were carried on. The withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was essential to the momentous change which has transferred the whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice, and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet has been described as being the regulator of relations between Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. … Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title, and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest instance in which I have found, the head of the government designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 7.

"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings; and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are, the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that, to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII. ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take part in the contests of political life."

A. V. Dicey. The Privy Council, page 143.

{345}

CABINET, The Kitchen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

CABOCHIENS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

CABOT, John and Sebastian. American Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841. Occupation by the British. Successful native rising. Retreat and destruction of the British army.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880. Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident. Second occupation by the English.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

----------CABUL: End----------

CACIQUE.

"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is the word found."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, page 210, foot-note.

CADDOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY; also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.

This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men, under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000 strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam, with 40,000 of his men.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26.

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

CADIZ: Origin.

See UTICA, and GADES.

CADIZ: A. D. 1596. Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

CADIZ: A. D. 1702. Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811. Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CADIZ: A. D. 1823. Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.

See BŒOTIA.

CADURCI, The.

The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 17.

CADUSIANS, The.

An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,—the district of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name was "Gaels."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.

CADWALLON, Death of.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

CÆLLAN HILL, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.

A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.

CAERLEON.

"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the second legion, which had been so long established at the Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened to Caerleon."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44; GAUL: B. C. 58-51; and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

CÆSAR, The title.

"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their own practice in this particular, and applied the name of Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him, and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the Cæsars of Byzantium."

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

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

CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in modern Saragossa.

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 34.

{346}

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.

See MAZACA.

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260. Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.

A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL. Modern Beauvais.

See BELGÆ.

CÆSARS, The Twelve.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

CÆSAR'S TOWER.

See TOWER OF LONDON.

CAFFA.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CAHORS: Origin.

See CADURCI.

CAHORS: A. D. 1580. Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

CAIRN.

See BARROW.

CAIRO: A. D. 641. Origin.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171. Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

CAIRO: A. D. 1517. Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CAIRO: A. D. 1798. Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.

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

CAIRO: A. D. 1800. Revolt suppressed by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802. Surrender to the English. Restoration to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811. Massacres of the Mamelukes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883. Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control. Occupation by the British.

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

----------CAIRO: End----------

CAIROAN.

See KAIRWAN.

CAIUS, called Caligula, Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.

CAKCHIQUELS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

CALABRIA: Transfer of the name.

"After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 45; note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CALABRIA: A. D. 1080. Norman duchy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

----------CALABRIA: End----------

CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347. Siege and capture by Edward III.

Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August, 1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him, with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St. Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives. He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.

W. Warburton, Edward III., Second Decade, chapter 3.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CALAIS: A. D. 1348. The Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

CALAIS: A. D. 1558. Recovery from the English by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CALAIS: A. D. 1564. Final surrender of English claims.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598. Surprise and capture by the Spaniards. Restoration to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

----------CALAIS: End----------

CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.

"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago—or St. James of Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St. Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in 1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that position against the assailants. The proposal was readily accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men, whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the order, which took its name from the place, and which in its religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and wore the same monastic habit,—a white robe and scapulary. [By pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the knights allowed to marry 'once.'—Foot-note.] The other order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them, by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez—if the 'don' has not been added to give something like respectability to the origin—was the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol. These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division 2.

{347}

In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella "received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and since that time the order has gradually merged into a court institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed since 1540."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.

CALAURIA, Confederation of.

A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens, Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3.

CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698. The founding of the city.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756. Capture by Surajah Dowlah. The tragedy of the Black Hole.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.

----------CALCUTTA: End----------

CALDERON, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

CALEDONIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

CALEDONIA, Ancient Tribes.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONIA, Wars of the Romans.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

----------CALEDONIA: End----------

CALEDONIA SYLVA.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONII, The.

One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of the island.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALENDAR, The French Republican.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

CALENDAR, Gregorian. Gregorian Era.

"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57 seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11 minutes, 3 seconds, … which, in the course of 130 years, amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore, the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell back a day behind it. … In the time of Pope Gregory XIII., A. D. 1582, … the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the 11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order, therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the 21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the 15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the 22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583, which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first, second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D. 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. … The Gregorian or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning January 1, instead of March 25."

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

The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal, part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587; in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584; in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700 and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece, and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.

_Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History._

CALENDAR, Julian. Julian Era.

"The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445 days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365 days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar, which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries. … The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. … Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the Roman months bore their present names. {348} An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days, 8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year consequently began three days too late: the calendar was, therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian nations, though about the sixth century they began to date from the birth of our Saviour."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 4.

"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion' [i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was corrected] was supposed to fall on December 25. But he chose to begin his new year on the first of January following, because on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun, at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."

T. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book 1.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 20.

For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN

CALENDS.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

CALETI, The.

See BELGÆ.

CALHOUN, John C., And the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

CALHOUN, John C. And the Nullification Movement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

CALIFORNIA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781. Origin of the name. Early Spanish exploration and settlement. The founding of the Franciscan missions.

"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the present limits of the State of California date from the first foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later founded north of San Diego were, with the original establishment itself, for a time known merely by some collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the name California, already long since applied to the country of the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at last came, being applied to our present country during the whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the origin of the name California, no serious question remains that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in 1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion. For, in this romance, the name California was already before 1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.' Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. … In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580]. … It is … almost perfectly sure that he did not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. … This result of the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown to Europeans during all this period. … In 1602-3, Sebastian Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the California coast. … From this voyage a little more knowledge of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth geographical researches in the region of California ceased for over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767, by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. … Thus began the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California. The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one great disaster occurring,—the destruction of San Diego Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of San Francisco. … After 1775, the old name began to be generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In 1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions, however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."

J. Royce, California, chapter 1, section 2.

ALSO IN: _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 13 (California, volume 1)._

F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest, chapters 5-15.

{349}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847. The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.

"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about 200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity, enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000 Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived in California during the period mentioned, and who participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their own government, or, rather, they felt that under the influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros, etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and others, sympathized with the United States, and desired annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico, then governor of the territory, and other prominent native Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul, who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to bring the country under English domination. … This was the state of affairs for two or three years previous to the Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and stimulated the two rivals—the American and English—in their efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when, in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur. Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command, appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag, proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being artistic in their work … the Mexicans, with their usual happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June, 1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had emigrated to California the year previous, issued a proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma. This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the existing government, and establish in its place the republican form. … General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country, appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico. During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have understood. … Just as Fremont, with his company, had started for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised the American flag and taken possession of the place; also, that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes. … Commodore Sloat … had heard of the commencement of hostilities on the Rio Grande, … sailed from Mazatlan for California, took possession of the country and raised the American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take possession of that portion of the country." In August, Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the territory. All his available force for land operations was 350 men—sailors and marines. {350} But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop, that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847. During all this period the people of the United States were ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa. But the action of Commodore Sloat … and … Commodore Stockton … did but anticipate the wishes of the United States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces, December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations in that region ceased."

E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, pages 29-42.

ALSO IN: _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 17 (California, volume 5), chapters 1-16._

J. C. Fremont, Memoirs of my Life, volume 1, chapters 14-15.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848. Cession to the United States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849. The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.

"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California, numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the future. Their government held secure possession of the whole territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it permanently. … It so happened that at this time one of the leading representatives of American interests in California was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers, near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W. Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business sense. … The place for his mill was in the small valley of Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of grains of wheat. … He thought they were gold, and went to the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine. At the time, little importance was attached to his statement. It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian' and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. … Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with the cry of 'gold'! … Nearly all the men hurried off to the mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of themselves. … 'The reports of the discovery, which began to reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful migration as the world had never seen. In 1849, 25,000—according to one authority 50,000—immigrants went by land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the world. … The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000; that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is about $12,000,000."

_J. S. Hittell, The Discovery of Gold in California (Century Magazine, February, 1891)._

ALSO IN: E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, or the Discovery of Gold in California.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapters 2-4.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850. Admission to the Union as a free state. The Compromise.

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

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856. The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.

"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee, which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856, has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of the origin and subsequent action of that association will be read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the infamous character of many of the public officials, had been the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but throughout the State of California. It was evident to the honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that … it would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times, edited by one James P. Casey. {351} The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street, receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city, by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and determined the organization of another committee for the same purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled themselves in a few days. … The members of the vigilance committee were divided into companies of 100, each company having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent to the different captains to appear with their companies ready for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived, they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty picked men were selected as a guard for the executive committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open space before the jail. … The houses opposite the jail were searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had killed a United States marshal the November previous, was taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly under control, and that there was no danger of any popular excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco. Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the country. … The governor of California at this time was Mr. J. Neely Johnson. … The major-general of the second division of state militia (which included the city and county of San Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his commission in the United States army and had become a partner in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco. … Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson … appealed to General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to call out the militia of his division to support that officer. At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service, and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others, had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order party, who were collected in force at the different armories. These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court. Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their position was made more precarious by the very fact of their having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way, placing the United States military force in California at the disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily with their work. … All the important changes which they had undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had it not been for the case of Judge Terry. … At last the physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. … Having got rid of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a close, and on the 18th of August the whole association, numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they were relieved from duty. … In the following November there was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best governed cities in the United States."

_T. G. Cary, The San Francisco Vigilance Committee (Atlantic Monthly, December 1877)._

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.

General W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, chapter 4 (volume 1).

{352}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880. Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party. The new state constitution.

"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in Pennsylvania. … Some strong language used at this meeting, and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men into forming a sort of committee of public safety. … The chief result of the incident was further irritation of the poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them. Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and other organizations, purporting to represent various parties or sections of a party, and among others a body calling itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but accustomed to include his religion among the established institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the Lyceum of Self Culture. … Kearney's tongue, loud and abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. … The advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally assured by his being, along with several other speakers, arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of California, with Kearney for its President. … The Sand Lot party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here, as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats, hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own at city and State elections. It carried most of the city offices, and when the question was submitted to the people whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. … Next came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without experience or constructive ideas. … However; the working men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many things and produced that surprising instrument by which California is now governed. …

1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator, and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.

2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.

3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State has power to prevent corporations from conducting their business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies, and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books and accounts of all transportation companies.

4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people, in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. … {353} The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens voting. … The next thing was to choose a legislature to carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional Convention, the results might have been serious. But fortunately there was a slight reaction. … A series of statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills, particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing, Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues, especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or training to argue the legal, economical, and political questions involved in the new Constitution so that the prominence of these questions threw him into the background. … Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics, and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where he goes or what he does."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 90 (volume 2), and appendix to volume 1 (containing the text of the Constitution of California).

----------CALIFORNIA: End----------

CALIGULA.

See CAIUS.

CALIPH, The Title.

The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of Mahomet.

CALIPHATE, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

CALIPHS, The Turkish Sultan becomes successor to the.

See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

CALISCH, OR KALISCH, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

CALIXTINES, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

CALLAO: Siege, 1825-1826.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

CALLAO: A. D. 1866. Repulse of the Spanish fleet.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

CALLEVA.

One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which, found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CALLIAS, Peace of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

CALLINICUS, Battle of.

Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans, commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 19.

CALLISTUS II., Pope, A. D. 1119-1124. Callistus III., Pope, A. D. 1455-1458.

CALMAR, The Union of.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397, and 1397-1527.

CALPULALPAM, Battle of (1860).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.

CALPURNIAN LAW, The.

"In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation, there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. … But these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. … The remedy for these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly constituted were afterwards established for the trial of persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor. The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make restitution. … The court consisted of a presiding judge … and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the judices tried all the cases which came before them during one year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to obtain satisfaction."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 2.

CALUSA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

CALVEN, Battle of (1499).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

CAMARCUM. The ancient name of the town of Cambrai.

CAMARILLA.

A circle of irresponsible chamber counsellors—courtiers—surrounding a sovereign with influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.

CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

CAMBAS, OR CAMPA, OR CAMPO, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS; and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CAMBORICUM. A Roman town in Britain.

"Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels, the principal of which occupied the district called the Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it, at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town. … Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time, a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble outside the city walls of the Roman town."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

{354}

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1581. Unsuccessful siege by the Prince of Parma.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598. End of the Principality of governor Balagni. Siege and capture by the Spaniards. Retention under the treaty of Vervins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1677. Taken by Louis XIV.

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

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1679. Ceded to France.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------CAMBRAI: End----------

CAMBRAI, The League of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

CAMBRAI, Peace of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

CAMBRIA. The early name of Wales.

See KYMRY, and CUMBRIA; also, BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

CAMBRIDGE, England, Origin of.

See CAMBORICUM.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts. The first settlement.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CAMBRIDGE, Platform, The:

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

CAMBYSES, OR KAMBYSES, King of Persia, B. C. 529-522.

CAMDEN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CAMERONIAN REGIMENT, The.

In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish] Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted. Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these 800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has won trophies in every quarter of the world."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 8.

CAMERONIANS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CAMISARDS, The revolt of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CAMORRA, OR CAMORRISTI, The.

"Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the law … there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples [overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one authority it is possible to err, for different forms or branches of this secret institution at times revealed their existence by the orders which they issued. This secret influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates received letters warning them to cease all practice in the courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced. 'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by the knife. … The Italian government, much to its credit, made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested, imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison. But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be [published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance and time."

The Trinity of Italy; by an English Civilian, page 70.

CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

"'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total disuse of the name.' … The term Campania, therefore, became obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors, whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of the different senses in which it had at different times been used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not accurately ascertained. … It will be seen that the term Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies round the city of Rome."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 14, note at end.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

CAMPALDINO, Battle of.

See FLORENCE; A. D. 1289.

CAMPANIANS, The.

See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

CAMPBELL, Sir Colin (Lord Clyde), The Indian Campaign of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

{355}

CAMPBELL'S STATION, Battle of.

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

CAMPERDOWN, Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAMPO-FORMIO, Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CAMPO SANTO, Battle of (1743).

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

CAMPO-TENESE, Battle of (1806).

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

CAMPUS MARTIUS AT ROME, The.

"The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages, first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and description. … During the time of the Republic, the whole Campus seems to have been considered state property and was used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of meeting for the comitia centuriata."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 13, part 1.

"We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the Capitoline. … But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. … During the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained almost entirely open. … In the Comitia, the citizens, when their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa, or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden erections."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 1.

CAMULODUNUM.

See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

CAMUNI, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

CANAAN. CANAANITES.

"Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of the Philistines."

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 2.

See PHŒNICIANS: ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY;

Also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY, and HAMITES.

----------CANAAN: End----------

CANADA. (NEW FRANCE.)

CANADA: Names.

"The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise, 1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida; thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived, repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words were a designation, and from that time this magnificent country bore the name of Canada. … Father Hennepin asserts that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name. … La Potherie gives the same derivation. … This derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of Stadacona (now Quebec). … Duponceau, in the Transactions of the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of the Indian language. … The natural conclusion … is, that the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without reference to the country; that each tribe had their own Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position according to their migrations."

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

"Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. … Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the commission given him by the king does not associate the name of Francis or any new name therewith. … There seems to have been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf. Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly, xi. 344."

B. F. De Costa, Jacques Cartier and his Successors (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 2), and Editor's foot-note.

{356}

"Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or 'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St. Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec. The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles). Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus divided:—'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,' Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador; 'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines the name of New France to districts bordering on the St. Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it, out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt, not Spanish, but Indian. … Lescarbot affirms that Canada is simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 1, foot-note.

CANADA: The Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY; ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

CANADA: A. D. 1497-1498. Coast discoveries of the Cabots.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497 and 1498.

CANADA: A. D. 1500. Cortereal on the coast.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504. Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CANADA: A. D. 1524. The coasting voyage of Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535. Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603. Jacques Cartier's last undertaking. Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605. The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World. Colonization at Port Royal. Exploration of the New England coast.

In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the navy, accepted a command …. at the request of De Chatte [or De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France. They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes, was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among the natives. … The trading company established by De Chatte was continued and increased by his successor. With this additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St. Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord. The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order, De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts, Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither. Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the coast southward far down the future home of the English Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at Port Royal.

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 3.

{357}

In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: _E. F. Slafter, Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de Champlain" (Prince Society, 1880), chapters 1-5._

CANADA: A. D. 1606-1608. The fortunes of the Acadian colony.

"De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts. De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate, named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony. During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes, much improving the condition of the settlers. The following winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. … In May, however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them. For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts, fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage, turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian expedition."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 4, section 1.

ALSO IN: J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611. Champlain's third and fourth expeditions. His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and first wars with the Iroquois.

"De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada the full control would remain with those who first made a settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the Hurons in their wars. …. In 1608 Champlain started for the St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. … In June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither. The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no advance in discovery could have been made without their assistance, and that this assistance could only have been obtained by rendering them service. … With the view of making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans, Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence. About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started; Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it [them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. … The advance up Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to Quebec from this expedition—the beginning of the long war of the French with the Iroquois—Champlain was summoned to France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March, 1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France. {358} "The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. … The Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. … France was unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment. The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed only at the establishment of their authority, which was to bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout heart.

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 1, chapters 3, 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: E. B. O'Callaghan, editor., Doc. History of New York, volume 3, pages 1-9.

CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613. The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt returned at the instance of the king to make the new settlement a central station for the conversion of the Indians,—a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611, with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the French king granted the whole territory now covered by the United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages. Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons—fathers Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading. They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. … La Saussaye was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure, when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. … When Argal arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded; four others were severely injured, and two young men, named Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed La Saussaye that the place where they were was English territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they were there under a commission from the crown of France, he would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty tone. … When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and remorse, he produced the commission which he had so dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set free. But the production of this document, while it saved the lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists … resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. … The only excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal—which was committed during a period of profound peace—was the claim which was made by England to the whole continent of North America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."

J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 1, chapter 12.

{359}

CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616. The founding of Montreal. Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.

"In 1611 Champlain again returned to America … and on the 28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the 13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of his Indian friends appeared. … As an evidence of their good will they imparted much valuable information respecting the geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40 or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain, advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement, transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy, one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him. They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery, and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March [1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty, through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets, whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois, whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."

J. MacMullen, History of Canada, chapter 1

"Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois. Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their enemy's country. … Leaving the shores of the lake, the invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25 or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616), when he made his way back to Montreal.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 3.

{360}

The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H. Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.

_J. V. H. Clark, History of Onondaga._

ALSO IN: _O. H. Marshall, Champlain's Expedition against the Onondagas. Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880._

E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History of New York, volume 3, pages 10-24.

CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628. Champlain and the fur traders. The first Jesuit mission. Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

"The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we have just described in the preceding pages was the last made by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur. Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say, as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in making the investment. … Under these circumstances, Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he could barely direct, but by no means control. … He succeeded at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments, farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals, including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post, raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to exploration, and that the government and trade should henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé. But Champlain … obtained a decree ordering that he should have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in New France, and that the company should abstain from any interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617 and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following year, however, the new and the old trading companies were consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years before again returning to France. His time was divided between many local enterprises of great importance. His special attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec, and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624 Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. … Champlain was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years." Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor was he able, during the following year, to improve much the prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered. The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50 persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were sustained by supplies sent from France. … The company as a mere trading association, was doubtless successful. … The large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of course, highly satisfactory to the company. … Nearly twenty years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of State. In the view of these several interested parties, the time had come for a radical change in the organization of the company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into supreme authority. … He lost no time in organizing measures. … The company of merchants whose finances had been so skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It was under the control and management of Richelieu himself. {361} Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. … Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and Florida. … It entered into an obligation … within the space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France. … The organization of the company … was ratified by the Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."

E. F. Slafter, Memoir of Champlain (Voyages: Prince Society, 1880, volume 1), chapter 9.

ALSO IN: Père Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by J. G. Shea, book 4 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635. Conquest and brief occupation by the English. Restoration to France.

"The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels, with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron, destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port. War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. … The attempts of Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned attention in England towards the New World; and, on the breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the French possessions in North America. It was a private enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman. Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships, intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not until the following summer that they returned to complete their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of the English. They were then restored, under a treaty stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at their own cost, under the royal authority, were never reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"—and also the grant of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates, continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas Day, 1635.

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapters 16-17.

ALSO IN: Calendar of State Papers: Colonial Series, 1574-1660, pages 96-143.

D. Brymuer, Report on Canadian Archives, pages xi-xiv, and note D.

_H. Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada._

See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND, A. D. 1610-1655.

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652. The Jesuit missions and their fate.

The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625, as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no obstacle in the path of duty. … Far in the west, beside a great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage [1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary scene of their new apostolate. … The Hurons received with hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded that it was suitable for the red man. {362} The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them. … Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition are required, with appropriate accompaniment of flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers, and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit to it. They baptized by stealth. … In time, the patient, self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory, involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin. Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the wrong. … The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron; they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight. To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm, these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering left no trace."

R. Mackenzie, America: A History, pages 326-332.

"With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous communities around them, had been the rude material from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a common ruin. … In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission. Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant, and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her civil and military annals."

F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 34.

ALSO IN: Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by Shea, books 5-7 (volume 2).

J. G. Shea, The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 6).

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673. Nicolet. Marquette. Joliet. Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.

When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West; seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men, stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St. Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. … The fierce wrath of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. … Another gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission centres. … In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries, rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.' … It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.' Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.' {363} This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor, Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. … The French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries, and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to accompany him. … M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St. Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. … On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay, followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces, and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men, and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°. Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude 34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois. Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians, but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette fill—and deservedly so—the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of 'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac], which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the place of the musical Indian name."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 5, section 3.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, chapters 2-5.

_C. W. Butterfield, History of the Discovery of the Northwest by Nicolet._

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, book 2, chapter 1 (volume l).

S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France, chapters 1-2.

CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657. The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at Quebec.

Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known, and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the translation of whose name the Indians formed the title Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties. He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the 17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief period.

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 12.

The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of the association arrived at Quebec from France with several immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at 25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the following year, a second party came. At this time the European population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the utmost care."

A. Bell, History of Canada, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government were held until 1692.

Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by Shea, volume 3, page 23.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapters 13-15.

{364}

CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700. The wars with the Iroquois.

"From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare was maintained between the Iroquois and the French, interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St. Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to maintain with the western nations. … The war parties of the League ranged through these territories so constantly that it was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. … So great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. … To retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by the French. … In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada, led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M. de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600 Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of Iroquois chiefs. … A species of armistice was finally agreed upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay, and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and establishments of the French without the fortification. In July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200 warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a descent upon the island of Montreal. … All that were without the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged, and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of the French, according to some writers, perished in this invasion, or were carried into captivity. … Overwhelmed by this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining prosperity."

L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: W. Kingsford, History of Canada, books 2-4 (volumes 1-2).

E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History of New York, volume 1, pages 57-278.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 2, chapters 3 and 8.

_O. H. Marshall, Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against the Senecas (Historical Writings, pages 123-186)._

CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688. French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674. Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province. Brief career of the French West India Company.

"In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France, and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied according to circumstances. This Council was further invested with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was added increased military protection against the Iroquois Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment … and other troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led, however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in its working. {365} "The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the company embraced all the possessions of France in the New World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France. … The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, … perceived that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the colony … and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674, the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor, council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies. … From this period (1674), when the population, embracing converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a destructive and harassing border warfare."

R. M. Martin, History of Upper and Lower Canada, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: A. Bell, History of Canada, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1).

F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapters 10-17.

CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687. La Salle and the acquisition of Louisiana.

"Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle—a man of iron if ever there was one—a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast province of Louisiana. … In 1669 La Salle made his first journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to China, but very little is known about this expedition, except that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies, and such military posts were to be established as would effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money, and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. … At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise. His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but, nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron, and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey, while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble, La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. … They made their way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to Niagara, and so on to Montreal. … At Niagara La Salle learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec. He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.- {366} On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May, 1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words, 'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly. The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River. Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico; and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were wrecked, and Beaujeu—though apparently without sinister design—sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much towards building up the imposing dominion with which New France confronted New England in the following century."

_J. Fiske, The Romance of the Spanish and French Explorers (Harper's Magazine, volume 64, pages 446-448.)_

ALSO IN: _F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West._

_Chevalier Tonti, Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition (New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2)._

_J. G. Shea, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley._

C. Le Clercq, First Establishment of the Faith in New France, translated by Shea, chapters 21-25 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690. The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War): The Schenectady Massacre. Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by the English.

The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones, were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At, Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post, but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even to Mackinaw. … France, bounding its territory next New England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay; and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be permitted to remain,—other inhabitants to be sent into Pennsylvania or New England. … In the east, blood was first shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates, and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.' {367} But they refused to invade the Abenakis. … Frontenac … now used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes; to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French and of the Christian Iroquois,—having De Mantet and Sainte Helene as leaders … —for two and twenty days waded through snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber: through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently [February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children and 10 were Africans. … The party from Three Rivers, led by Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons … surprised the settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. … Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party, under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May, 1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. … At that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack Quebec."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States, chapter 21 (volume 3), (part 3, chapter 11, volume 2, in the "Author's last Revision").

Before the end of the month in which the congress was held, Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered, having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts, in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet (consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was, likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal, by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York, and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous. … As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but 300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the descent upon Canada. … It was not till after a voyage of more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together. … The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence. Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence, which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have come down from the upper country only to find the English commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost altogether some 200 men.

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV., chapters 10-13.

Doc. History of New York, volumes 1-2.

F. Bowen, Life of Sir W. Phips, (Library of American Biographies, volume 7), chapters 2-3.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 2, chapter 12.

J. Pearson, et al, History of the Schenectady Patent, chapters 8-10.

CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697. The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War): Abortive plans of invasion on both sides. French recovery of Acadia.

"The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts, and the failure of the supplies which were sought from England. … But there was mismanagement on all hands in the conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been predestinated that New England should not be delivered from the presence of the French at the north, until time had wrought the necessary changes which were to render the conquest of that country available for the promotion of still more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this enterprise, and … the government was informed that it had 'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of New England.' … Unfortunately for the success of these plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,—bringing himself the news of the projected invasion,—he had lost 1,300 out of 2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers. {368} All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by 2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province, however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued commissions to judges and other officers, and required the administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal, and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made to dislodge Villebon, but without success. … In the summer of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished their claims to the country. The last year of King William's War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada, and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying the settlements as far back into the country as possible. Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland, until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to secure as large a share of territory in America as possible, retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of dispute and negotiation.".

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 2, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV., chapters 16-19.

J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 14.

See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

CANADA: A. D. 1696. Frontenac's expedition against the Iroquois.

The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from "the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign. Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him, Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the western tribes, and sued for peace."

G. Stewart, Jr., Frontenac and His Times (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 7).

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV., chapters 18-19.

CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710. Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate government.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735. The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and on the Lakes.

"From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a continuous French occupation of Illinois. … He planted his citadel of St. Louis on the summit of 'Starved Rock,' proposing to make that the centre of his colony. … At first his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis … in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.' {369} Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes. Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the 'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee. Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile valley. … The French located their principal missions and posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier, and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important to-day as they were when they chose them. … La Salle's colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana. 'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio. Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the French, it practically banished from the English mind for fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. … Then how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay, Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. … In due time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in 1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego. Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle, the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735]. Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also began to enter them."

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710. The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War): Border ravages in New England and Acadia. English Conquest of Acadia.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713. The Second Inter-Colonial War. Walker's Expedition against Quebec. Massacre of Fox Indians. The Peace of Utrecht.

After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40 transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest Jack Hill. … From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711, the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600 Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700 or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec, Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the same time, the present and actual difficulties of the expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. … Resolving to burn Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and, about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois, Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with its own ensign, came to his relief. {370} So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the West. … The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. … In the meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed between France and England; and the war … was suspended by negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. … England, by the peace of Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north, and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi. 'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic words. … The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John 'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia, according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that 'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory? And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English dominions? These were questions which were never to be adjusted amicably."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's Last Revision), part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).

With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of the French policy to get them out of the way. They were enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."

S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France, chapters 5-6.

ALSO IN: Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 5.

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 6, chapters 5-6 (volume 2).

R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letters 8-9.

See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714, and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D.1713.

CANADA: A. D. 1720. The fortifying of Louisbourg.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748. The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War). Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754. Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and the West.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753. Boundaries disputes with England. Futile negotiations at Paris.

"For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the question of boundaries between France and England in America had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west. The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its former self. … Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other questions of limits, more important and equally perilous, called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada and her western dependencies from the British colonies? Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their fisheries,—in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the countries they overran. … But the range of their war-parties was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain, forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp. {371} This would give them not only the country between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the American map now represented by the province of Quebec,—or rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé, Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of British claims there were those who denied that France had any rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be won with the sword."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. C. Haliburton, Account of Nova Scotia, volume 1, pages 143-149.

See, also, NOVA SCOTIA:

CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755. Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties with the Iroquois,

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (April). Plans of the English against the French.

"While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris] were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March [1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the 14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors, Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and Dinwiddie, of Virginia. … Between England and France peace existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, was to reduce that province according to the English interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in British pay and lead them with provincial militia against Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio valley."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 2, pages 416-419.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June). French disaster at Sea. Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia. The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.

"In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18 ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau, an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt would be made by France to recover possession of the province. It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure, some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement, several of them escaped by taking the northern route via Belleisle … successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,' Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors … followed by the 'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."

G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 51-54.

ALSO IN: J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain, volume 5, pages 104-106.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July). Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (August-October): The abortive expedition against Niagara.

According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."

E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 1, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 26 (volume 2).

{372}

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September). The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.

"The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who were able to bear arms were called into active service; so that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians, he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick, marched to relieve that post. The French had information of their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side, and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept. 5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely were these preparations made when the panting fugitives appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians. Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on. A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never left his post. … He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he bequeathed property to found a free school in western Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams College."

J. H. Patton, Concise History of the American People, volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN: W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson, volume 1, chapter 16.

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 9.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November). Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1756. Formal declarations of war. The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian War" in British America. Montcalm sent from France.

"On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the islands of the sea."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after; also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.

"Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place. … Still, something must be done for the American war; at least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint Véran. … The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of France, was named as his second in command. … The troops destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May, was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general, Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three kinds,—"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or regulars from France; the 'troupes de la marine,' or colony regulars; and lastly the militia. {373} The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100 men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada, from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. … In 1750 the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were but few. … To the white fighting force of the colony are to be added the red men. … The military situation was somewhat perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great preparations on the part of the English. As neither party dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. … Indians presently brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened to the supposed scene of danger … and reached Ticonderoga at the end of June. They found the fort … advanced towards completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. … The rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort Ticonderoga, or Carillon,—a structure quite distinct from the later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot. … Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous honor, was in the second line. … The danger from the English proved to be still remote. … Meanwhile, at the head of Lake George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were mustering for the fray."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3).

CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757. French successes. Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry. Bloody work of the savage allies.

On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge. … His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice. Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point—6, 000 for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government, dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800 men in these divided between Fort Ontario … Fort Oswego … and Fort George, or Rascal … about a mile distant from each other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell, fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in command—both notorious for previous incompetency. … They were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were 2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb. On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. … On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced, when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was attempted. {374} An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and humane Montcalm or De Lévis. … Fort George, or William Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George, together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St. Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany Mountains."

G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 70-79.

ALSO IN: E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapters 2-3.

CANADA: A. D. 1758. The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne. Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.

"The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry, the French had obtained complete possession of the lake Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St. Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains; while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. … But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of unrivalled brilliancy. … The brightest era of British history was to commence. … The public voice had, at length, made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the greatest men of the age in which he lived. … In the summer of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was placed at its head. … Possessing the public confidence without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. … In no part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration more popular than in his American colonies. … The circular letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of men, within their respective governments, as the number of inhabitants might allow. … The legislature of Massachusetts agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New Hampshire 3,000. … Three expeditions were proposed. The first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men, was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"

See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

"The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army, consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery, and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but, the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George, was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners, among whom were five officers. This small advantage was purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. … Without farther opposition, the English army took possession of the post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more formidable by its general than by its position. It was commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. … After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning; and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga and Crown Point. {375} Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune, if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north side of Ontario. … Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect; and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable, surrendered at discretion. … After destroying the fort and vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army, destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until the month of September. … Early in October general Forbes moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats. The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The acquisition of this post was of great importance to Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."

J. Marshall, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN: W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 11.

B. Fernow, The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days, chapter 7.

Major R. Rogers, Journals, edited by Hough, pages 115-123.

W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 24.

N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 177-200.

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (June-September). The Fall of Quebec.

"Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt] thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. … One of the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his appointment to the chief command of the expedition against Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered to assemble. … Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates, and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral [Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers, formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were somewhat under 8,000."

E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.

"Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton, Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and, like himself, already schooled to arms. … The Grenadiers of the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields. Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by precipices. … The place was tolerably fortified, but art had not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable. Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous than the assailants; but the greater part of them were Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep intrenchments. … After much resistance, Wolfe established batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence, within cannon range of the city. … Many houses were set on fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish; the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St. Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an ill-judged position. … On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops, and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost from the water's edge. … He returned to Montmorency disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp, however difficult to be approached, and however strongly posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats from Point Levi. … As usual in complicated orders, part were misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara. {376} "The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on his spirits. … The agitation of his mind, and his acute sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. … The brief Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September. The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the north shore above the town, watch the movements of the squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. … The descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the 13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat, who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain, knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment. Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be. 'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond, which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches. Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham. Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his camp that the English were on the heights threatening the weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with 1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank the left of the English line and force them to the opposite precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound, while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend, who had succeeded to the command.

W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 25.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 27-28 (volume 2).

R. Wright, Life of Wolfe, chapters 21-23.

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4)._

W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 6.

J. Knox, Historical Journal, volume 1, pages 255-360; volume 2, pages 1-132.

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August). The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal supplies of men and money, and the American colonies, encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux, assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders. Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army before Quebec. … Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post, and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles east of the mouth of the Niagara. … Prideaux began his trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle, and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily advancing the work … when, on the 19th, he was killed by the bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the trenches, where he had gone to issue orders. {377} Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the French officers and men being slain or captured. This took from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut off from communication with the east, and had given up a large part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation (Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats, bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard, pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400 men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion, during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops, and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder. … After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts," until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate and useless preparations."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.

W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson, volume 2, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1760. The completion of the English conquest. The end of "New France."

"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm, gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. … After several fruitless attacks had been made on the British outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery, and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten miles away. Their position, however, had been very much strengthened. … De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the 27th advanced to within three miles of the city."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 21.

"On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city, left the advantageous ground which he first occupied, and hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis] opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men, labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the 15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing; abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760, he met before Montreal the army of Murray. {378} The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point; and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. … The capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor, against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was thought of. … On the fifth day after the capitulation, Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to the upper posts. … The Indians on the lakes were at peace, united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (Author's last revision), volume 2, pages 522-524.

ALSO IN: _W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 7 (giving the Articles of Capitulation in full)._

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapters 29-30 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1763. Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774. The Province of Quebec created. Eleven years of military rule. The Quebec Act of 1774. Extension of Quebec Province to the Ohio and the Mississippi.

"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three departments into which General Amherst divided the country. Military councils were established to administer law, though, as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St. John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in the letters-patent by which these governments were constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the King's immediate government.' … No assembly, however, ever met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take the test oath, and the government of the province was carried on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an executive council, composed in the first instance of the two lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to 1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws actually in force. … The province of Quebec remained for eleven years under the system of government established by the proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the first time in Canadian affairs and made important constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a system of government was granted to Canada by the express authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of the province of Quebec. … The Act of 1774 was exceedingly unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies, then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament, however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust the government of the province so as to conciliate the majority of the people. … The new constitution came into force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation of 1763 were 'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long series of years, from the first establishment of the province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of the province. They had no authority, however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for approval or disallowance. {379} It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy, relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal code which might have prevailed before 1764. … Roman Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their 'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."

J. G. Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN: W. Houston, Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution, pages 90-96.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776. Invasion by the revolting American colonists. Loss and recovery of Montreal. Successful defence of Quebec.

At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain, the United States of America, it was believed among them that Canada would join their movement if the British troops which occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief, the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775, adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was General Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold, with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River, cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of Canada—if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St. Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy. It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada had been laid. … General Carleton escaped from Montreal, and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St. Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks. Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St. Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men, supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were, however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St. Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in confusion. The American generals have been criticized by experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing on the Plains of Abraham. … General Arnold remained before Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men. General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success. Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade encamped at Three Rivers. {380} The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers, but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain, and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been before the first attack in the year before."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 6, section 3.

ALSO IN: B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, volume 1, chapters 19-29, and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold, chapters 3-5, (Library of American Biographies, volume 3).

_J. Armstrong, Life of Richard Montgomery (Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

_C. H. Jones, History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776._

_J. J. Henry, Arnold's Campaign against Quebec._

CANADA: A. D. 1776. General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CANADA: A. D. 1777. Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D 1783. Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784. Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United States.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

CANADA: A. D. 1791 The Constitutional Act. Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.

"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who urged that the separation of the English and French inhabitants was most undesirable. … The act was passed, and is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. … In each province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon, prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General. The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s, freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16 members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies, differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still went on between the French and English races. … The discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const., pages 112-133.

D. Brymner, Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, appendix B.

CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815. The War of Great Britain with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).

CANADA: A. D. 1818. Convention between Great Britain and the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837. The Family Compact.

"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada, heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E. loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its prominent members belonged to the class which in the American colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson, and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the American revolution. … By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of religion."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 10, section 2.

"Upper Canada … has long been entirely governed by a party commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very little of family connection among the persons thus united. For a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices, by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it maintained influence in the legislature by means of its predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it before the last war with the United States; the principal members of it belong to the church of England, and the maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one of its distinguishing characteristics."

Earl of Durham, Report on the Affairs of British North America, page 105.

"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or another been a familiar one in all the British North American colonies. … The designation Family Compact, however, did not owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists, but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."

J. C. Dent, The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion, chapter 3.

{381}

CANADA: A. D. 1837. The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.

"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose. A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management of a colony—a 'British party' devoted to the so-called interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their service officials whom the representative' assembly had condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to be within their reach at the time. The colony—for indeed on these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong, was so near to being of one mind that we may take the declarations of public meetings as representing the colony—demanded that the legislative council should be made elective, and that the colonial government should not be allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied by refusing to listen to the proposal. … It is not necessary to suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the mere differences of race. … At last the representative assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on any further business. They formulated their grievances against the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader of the movement to protest against the policy of the governors, and that of the Government by whom they were sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which undoubtedly rather strong language was used. … Lord Gosford, the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once left the country; others against whom warrants were issued were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements, the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed itself into open rebellion."

J. McCarthy, History of Our own Times, volume 1, chapter 3.

Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to 2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the Province. Three objections were made against continuing these Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart. The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for 'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively the Church of England, which was established by law in the mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made, every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not cleared for years the people complained that they were not utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. … The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr. Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: J. McMullen, History of Canada, chapters 19-20.

_Earl of Durham, Report and Dispatches._

_Sir F. B. Head, Narrative._

Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in Lower Canada, (House of Commons, February 20, 1837).

{382}

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838. The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression. The Burning of the Caroline.

"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of the population was disaffected to the government, there were some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall, and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were formed in the market square during the night and well armed. In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and discharged men from both the naval and military services. … Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and adherents in the course of the night and following day, and, seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day, at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence, the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford (where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf, fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over the Falls.

Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations, volume 2, chapter 12.

"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth. But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada. chapter 16, section 15.

On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was very commonly called "the Patriot War."

ALSO IN: C. Lindsey, Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie, volume 2.

_J. C. Dent, Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841. International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the Caroline. The McLeod Case.

The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D. 1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an American named Durfree was killed. The British government avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van Buren [President of the United States] went out of office whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. … In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree, and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States. … Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act. Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him, diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with the British government. … His first step was to instruct the Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence, furnishing them with authentic information that the destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. … {383} This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities, who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions between England and the United States.

H. C. Lodge, Daniel Webster, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. H. Seward, Works, chapter 2, pages 547-588.

D. Webster, Works, volume 6, pages 247-269.

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867. Reunion of the provinces. The opposition of races. Clear Grits and Conservatives.

"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before: it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province; and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the measure was directed against their nationality. But since the Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed under a Governor-General with a single legislature, consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before, of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House elected by the people. Each province was to have the same number of representatives, although the population of the French Province was at that time much larger than that of the British Province. The French language was proscribed in official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent, constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes, necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.' Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to their leaders, became politically dominant. The British factions began to bid against each other for their support, and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing the use of the French language in official proceedings was repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual. The Premiership was divided between the English and the French leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of patronage; of public funds they got more than their full share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods they contributed far less than their quota to the public revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in contravention of the principle of religious equality and severance of the Church from the State. In time it was recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have a majority from each section of the Province. This practically almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party, playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege, by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus come over the character and relations of parties. French Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis of the Conservative party. British Canada became the stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was its fruit."

Goldwin Smith, Canada and the Canadian Question, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const., pages 149-185.

J. G. Bourinot, Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada, chapter 5.

CANADA: A. D. 1842. Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the Ashburton Treaty.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866. The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its abrogation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

CANADA: A. D. 1864. The St. Albans Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871. Fenian invasions.

The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866, expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900 men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway. Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded. {384} Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men, was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie, and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back. The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and, though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota, the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure. These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of citizen soldiery however resulted."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, pages 468-470.

ALSO IN: _G. T. Denison, Jr., The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie. Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion. Official Report of General John O'Neill._

CANADA: A. D. 1867. Federation of the provinces of British North America in the Dominion of Canada. The constitution of the Dominion.

"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867, when the provinces of British North America were brought more closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865, the administration of government in Canada had become surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing character. … Parties at last were so equally balanced on account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration, and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years. From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there were no less than five different ministries in charge of the public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically at a dead-lock. … It was at this critical juncture of affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case of the failure of the larger scheme. … It was a happy coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were about considering a maritime union at the time the leading statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the decision to consider the question of the larger union at Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates from all the British North American provinces assembled in conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions, which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, being at last in full accord, through the action of their respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties, and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same year. … The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec [Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian Parliament. … The title of Dominion did not appear in the Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the union bill was finally drafted."

T. G. Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, chapter 6-7 (with foot-note).

"The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e., the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General [appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible ministers. {385} He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years. Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only, and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature. The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of England. The distribution of matters within the competence of the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction, that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them, the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation, restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament, except as regards certain points left to its own legislature. … There exists no power of amending the Provincial constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80.

See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

ALSO IN: _J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada (with text of Act in appendix) Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov. Parliament of Canada._

W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution, pages 186-224.

CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873. Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory. Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's Island to the Dominion.

"In 1869 … the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides. The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II. The region to which it referred carries some of its history imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. … The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821, when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies—impoverished by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace, disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been under their sway before that, having been committed to their care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay Company were always careful to foster the idea that their territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which were from time to time brought to the ears of the English Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire into the state of the British possessions under the Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so desolate. … During the sittings of the Committee there was cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August 28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the district received the name of Manitoba."

J. McCarthy, History of our own Times, chapter 55 (volume 4).

{386}

Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July 20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.

_J. McCoun, Manitoba and the Great North West._

ALSO IN: G. M. Adam, The Canadian Northwest, chapters 1-13

_G. L. Huyshe, The Red River Expedition._

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, page 313.

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

_G. E. Ellis, The Hudson Bay Company (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8)._

See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871, and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.

CANADA: A. D. 1871. The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

CANADA: A. D. 1877. The Halifax Fishery Award.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888. Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington. Renewed controversies. The rejected Treaty.

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

CANAI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CANARES, The.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANARY ISLANDS, Discovery of the.

The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and 'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country in the world that has been so many times discovered, conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese, and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians, Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust, sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon the human race, at least upon the records of their history. When the world revived, and especially when the use of the loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad in France an account of the voyage."

A. Helps, Spanish Conquest, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 20, note E.

CANAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANCELLARIUS.

See CHANCELLOR.

CANDAHAR. Siege and relief of English forces (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

CANDIA.

This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete, but has been often applied to Crete itself.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of the so-called "War of Candia"; also CRETE: A. D. 823.

CANDRAGUPTA, OR CHANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.

See INDIA.: B. C. 327-312, and 312-.

CANGI, The.

A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of Modern Carnarvonshire.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANICHANAS, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANIENGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CANNÆ Battles of (B. C. 216).

See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND. (B. C. 88). See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CANNENEFATES, The.

"On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland, beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

CANNING, Lord, The Indian administration of, A. D. 1856-1862.

CANNING MINISTRY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CANOPUS, Decree of.

An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis, in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died, and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus, Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their honour. … This great inscription, far more perfect and considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the hieroglyphics."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 15, note.

{387}

CANOSSA, Henry IV. at.

In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February, A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him, he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope a release from his excommunication before the coming anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person, and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter. Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg. Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St. Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists, and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by which Henry was released from excommunication, but the question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the priests.

W. R. W. Stephens, Hildebrand and His Times, chapters 11-15.

ALSO IN: A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory VII., book 5.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122; ROME: 1081-1084.

CANTABRIA, Becomes Bardulia and Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

CANTABRIANS AND ASTURIANS, The.

The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain, inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants. The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B. C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was not subdued until three years later.

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

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 2.

See APPENDIX A, volume 1.

CANTÆ, The.

A tribe in ancient Caledonia.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTERBURY. The murder of Becket (1170).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CANTERBURY PRIMACY, Origin of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.

CANTII, The.

The tribe of ancient Britons which occupied the region of Kent.

See BRITAIN. CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842. The Opium War. Ransom of the city from English assault. Its port opened to British trade.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857. Bombardment by the English. Capture by the English and French.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

CANTONS, Latin.

See GENS, ROMAN; also ALBA.

CANTONS, Swiss.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

CANULEIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 445.

CANUTE, OR CNUT, King of England, A. D.1017-1035, and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035. Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086. Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156. Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.

CANZACA.

See ECBATANA.

CANZACA, OR SHIZ, Battle of.

A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses, supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was defeated and Chosroës restored.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 23.

CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1497. Discovery by John Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1504. Named by the fishermen from Brittany.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1713. Possession confirmed to France.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

{388}

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745. The fortification of Louisbourg.

After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In 1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia] … returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels, belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes of boards, timber and bricks. … Louisbourg [described, with a plan, in the work here quoted] … had, between the years 1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of 30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished, and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be required for their defence that the government had abandoned the idea of completing them according to the original design."

R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letters 9-11.

"The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor, which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns, of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort … was a safe rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers, sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the banks."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).

"'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens. That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the infancy of American colonization appears incredible; explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the period.'"

C. B. Elliott, The United States and the New England Fisheries, page 18.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1744. Outbreak of the Third Inter-Colonial War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745. Conquest by the New Englanders. Fall of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745; and ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1748. Restored to France.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS; and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760. The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.

"In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,—see CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and 18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218 cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of 2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later, at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders were carried out so effectually that few traces of its fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by fishermen."

C. C. Smith, The Wars on the Seaboard (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 7).

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 19 (volume 2).

See, also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763. Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763. Added to the government of Nova Scotia.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

----------CAPE BRETON ISLAND: End----------

CAPE COLONY.

See SOUTH AFRICA.

CAPE ST. VINCENT, Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAPETIANS, Origin and crowning of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 861, and 877-987.

CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of. One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 10.

CAPHTOR.

An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater Phœnicia.'"

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 2.

On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."

CAPHYÆ, Battle of.

Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63.

{389}

CAPITOLINE HILL AT ROME. The Capitol.

"In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius, see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in Italy. … This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling, consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches on one side—that towards the Forum. … The top of the hill is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or Citadel. … The Capitolium was also in early time known as the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the treachery of Tarpeia. … In later times the name 'rupes Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the 'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals, according to a very primitive custom, is now almost impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. … The perpendicular cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. … That this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the wrong side of the hill."

J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 7.

See, also, SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, and GENS, ROMAN.

CAPITULARIES.

"It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word 'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws of the Frank kings. … Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking, the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by which he manifested his authority."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 21.

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 2.

CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.

CAPO D'ISTRIA, Count, The Assassination of.

See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

CAPPADOCIA.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CAPS, Party of the.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

CAPTAL. A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine. "Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."

Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 158, note.

CAPTIVITY, Prince of the.

See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

CAPTIVITY OF THE JEWS, The.

See JEWS: B. C. 604-536.

CAPUA.

Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point of size—the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization. … The gladiatorial sports … if they did not originate, were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 5.

CAPUA: B. C. 343. Surrender to the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAPUA: B. C. 216-211. Welcome to Hannibal. Siege and capture by the Romans. The city repeopled.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

CAPUA: A. D. 800-1016. The Lombard principality.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CAPUA: A. D. 1501. Capture, sack and massacre by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

----------CAPUA: End----------

CAPUCHINS, The.

"The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule. Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St. Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St. Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their convents built in the simplest style. They became very serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, volume 3, page 455.

CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.

See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

CARABOBO, Battles of (1821-1822).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

CARACALLA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-217.

CARACCAS: A. D. 1812. Destruction by earthquake.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

CARAFFA, Cardinal (Pope Paul IV.) and the Counter Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563, and 1555-1603.

{390}

CARAS, OR CARANS, OR CARANQUIS, The.

See ECUADOR.

CARAUSIUS, Revolt of.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

CARAVELS. GALEONS, Etc.

"The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of different size and construction. The caravels of the New World discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day. The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. … The galera was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars, usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five oarsmen to a bench. … The galeaza was the largest class of galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. … A galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails, and sometimes top-gallant sails. … Those which plied between Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being 1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca, and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig, had low bulwarks. … The name brigantine was applied in America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, page 187, foot-note.

See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

CARBERRY, Mary Stuart's surrender at.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CARBONARI, Origin and character of the.

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

CARCHEMISH.

See HITTITES, THE.

CARCHEMISH, Battle of.

Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon. Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped of all his Syrian conquests.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 2, chapter 4.

CARDADEN, Battle of (1808).

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

CARDINAL INFANT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CARDINALS, College of.

See CURIA, THE ROMAN (PAPAL), and PAPACY: A. D. 1059.

CARDUCHI, The.

"South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 12.

See, also, GORDYENE.

Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an important part in mediæval history.

See SALADIN, EMPIRE OF.

CARGILLITES, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CARHAM, Battle of.

Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm, invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom. The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards fought.

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2.

CARIANS, The.

"The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts; but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.

The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus, and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument, which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege. Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.

C. T. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, volume 2.

See, also, HAMITES and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

CARIAY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

CARIBBEAN ISLANDS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496, and WEST INDIES.

CARIBS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

CARILLON. The French name of Fort Ticonderoga.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.

CARINTHIA, Early mediaeval history.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH-7TH CENTURIES, and GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

CARINUS, Roman Emperor. A. D. 283-284.

CARIPUNA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

CARISBROOK CASTLE, The flight of King Charles to.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

CARIZMIANS.

See KHUAREZM.

CARL, OR KARL.

See ETHEL. ETHELING.

{391}

CARLINGS.

See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLISLE, Origin of.

See LUGUVALLIUM.

CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846, and 1873-1885.

CARLOMAN, King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;

(Burgundy and Aquitaine), A. D. 879-894.

Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, A. D. 741-747.

CARLOS.

See CHARLES.

CARLOVINGIANS.

See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

CARLSBAD, Congress of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

CARMAGNOLE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

CARMANIANS, The.

"The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, volume 5, book 8, chapter 3.

CARMATHIANS, The.

"In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites—the same from which sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name, were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. … The cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. … The rapine of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and 20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith. Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword; the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone, the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root. … It is needless to enquire into what factions they were broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the caliphs."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52, and note by Dr. Smith. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, ASSASSINS.

CARMELITE FRIARS.

"About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel [Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century, prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or rather none out of their society), that their origin was so ancient and illustrious."

J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21.

ALSO IN: G. Waddington, History of the Church, chapter 19, section 5.

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, section 244 (volume 2).

E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, chapter 5.

CARMIGNANO, Battle of (1796).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

CARNABII, OR CORNABII, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNAC.

See ABURY.

CARNATES, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

CARNEIAN FESTIVAL, The.

A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676. "The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ. … It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian Boedrömia."

G. Rawlinson, Note to Herodotus, book 7.

ALSO IN: E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.

CARNIANS, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

CARNIFEX FERRY, Battle of:

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARNONACÆ, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNOT, Lazare N. M., and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

CARNOT, Sadi, President of the French Republic, 1887-.

{392}

CARNUTES, The.

The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids was in the country of the Carnutes.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 22.

See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

CAROLINAS, The.

See NORTH CAROLINA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.

CAROLINE, Queen, Trial of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CAROLINE, The Burning of the.

See CANADA: A. D. 1887-1838, and 1840-1841.

CAROLINE BOOKS, The.

A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, book 2, chapter 12.

CAROLINGIA.

On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by that of France.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 6, section 1.

CAROLINGIANS.

See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARPET-BAGGERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

CARR DIKE.

A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 16.

CARRACKS, OR CARACS.

"A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th centuries.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note.

See, also, CARAVELS.

CARRARA FAMILY, The: Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the Visconti of Milan.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1838, and MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

CARRHÆ, Battles of (B. C. 53).

See ROME: B. C. 57-52. (A. D. 297). See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CARRICK’S FORD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE—JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARROCCIO, The.

"The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy, eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car, intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight and confidence."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 1.

CARTERET, Sir George, The Jersey Grant to.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667, to 1688-1738.

CARTERET’S MINISTRY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

CARTHAGE, The founding of.

Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab, king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal. "Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B. C.). After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and Sicharbaal, both under age. … Mutton died in the year 853 B. C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth. Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death … (846 B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles … are said … to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e., 'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their soil."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 3, chapter 11.

CARTHAGE: Divisions, Size and Population.

"The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us, the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23 miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war, when its strength had been drained … it contained 700,000 inhabitants."

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _E. A. Freeman, Carthage (Hist. Essays, 4th series)._

{393}

CARTHAGE: The Dominion of.

"All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus. Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city, colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed 300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great Syrtis,—westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture; and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. … Of the Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it must have been prodigiously great. … A few of the towns along the coast,—Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis, &c.—were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. … Yet the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town tributary, with the exception of Utica. … At one time, immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. … The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks to undertake … military service were generally averse to it, and sparingly employed. … A chosen division of 2,500 citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 81.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 480. Invasion of Sicily. Great defeat at Himera.

See SICILY: B. C. 480.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405. Invasions of Sicily. Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.

See Sicily: B. C. 409-405.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 396. Siege of Syracuse.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 383. War with Syracuse.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 310-306. Invasion by Agathokles.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241. The first war with Rome. Expulsion from Sicily. Loss of maritime supremacy.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238. Revolt of the mercenaries.

At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself so long in Sicily—a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians, Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others—was sent over to Carthage for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge. The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean, and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong, with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African, and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government, controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the "Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but most powerful of historical romances.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 4.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202. Hamilcar in Spain. The second war with Rome. Hannibal in Italy and Sicily. Scipio in Africa. The great defeat at Zama. Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

{394}

CARTHAGE: B. C. 146. Destruction by Scipio.

Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave signs of being able to reform the government of the city and to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince, client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect; the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war, with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before. Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by street, and, against his own wish, by command of the implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold as slaves.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapter 46.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 44. Restoration by Cæsar.

"A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C. Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in Libya."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.

CARTHAGE: 2d-4th Centuries. The Christian Church.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 439. Taken by the Vandals.

Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th of Oct., A. D. 439,—nine years after the conquest and destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;—585 years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony; and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in the West—as the Rome (if we may use the style of contemporaries) of the African world. … The buildings of Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character. The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted their manners. … The King of the Vandals severely reformed the vices of a voluptuous people. … The lands of the proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the barbarians."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 33. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 533. Taken by Belisarius.

See VANDALS. A. D. 533-534.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.

The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. … Their numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the Emperor Justinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{395}

CARTHAGE: A. D. 698. Destruction by the Arabs.

"In the 77th year of the Hegira [A. D. 698] … Abd'almalec [the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000 choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest [which had languished for some years, during the civil wars among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of whom was enriched by booty. … The triumph of the Moslem host was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port; snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field; encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete, for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."

W. Irving, Mahomet and his Successors, volume 2, chapter 54.

ALSO IN: _N. Davis, Carthage and Her Remains._

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

----------CARTHAGE: End----------

CARTHAGE, Missouri, Battle of.

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

CARTHAGENA (NEW CARTHAGE). The founding of the city.

Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain, founded New Carthage—modern Carthagena—some time between 229 and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion in the Spanish peninsula.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 9.

Capture by Scipio.

See PUNIC WAR. THE SECOND.

Settlement of the Alans in.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

----------CARTHAGENA: End----------

CARTHAGENA (South America): A. D. 1697. Taken and sacked by the French.

One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was closed by the Peace of Ryswick—undertaken, in fact, while the negotiations at Ryswick were in progress—was the storming and sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest, commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the conqueror. Pointis … reentered Brest safe and sound, bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost more than twenty millions."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.

CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1741. Attack and repulse of the English.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

CARTHAGENA A. D. 1815. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

----------CARTHAGENA (South America): End----------

CARTHUSIAN ORDER. La Grande Chartreuse.

"St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims, followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble, amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse (A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life—the eremitical joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell, where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community only on Sunday. … Never, perhaps, had the monastic life surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. … The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his slight allowance of boiled herbs;—such is the life of pious austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has embraced the primitive rule."

J. E. Darras, History of the Catholic Church, volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26, and chapter 10, par. 11.

From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful magnificence of this dreary solitude. … The desert of the Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite rocks, which overhang above. … The monastery itself is as striking as the approach. … On the west … there is a little space which … is occupied by a dark grove of pine trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns within."

M. A. Schimmelpenninck, A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse, volume 1, pages 6-13.

CARTIER, Jacques, Exploration of the St. Lawrence by.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and 1541-1603.

{396}

CARTOUCHE.

"It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."

A. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt, page 43.

CARTWRIGHT'S POWER LOOM, The invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

CARUCATE.

See HIDE OF LAND.

CARUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 282-283.

CASA MATA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631. Siege by the Imperialists. Final acquisition by France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

CASALE: A. D. 1640. Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

CASALE: A. D. 1697. Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.

----------CASALE: End----------

CASALSECCO, Battle of (1427).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

CASAS, Bartolomé de las, The humane labors of.

See SLAVERY: MODERN—OF THE INDIANS.

CASDIM.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

CASENA, Massacre at.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

CASHEL, Psalter of.

See TARA, THE HILL AND THE FEIS OF.

CASHEL, Synod of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820. Conquest by Runjet Singh.

See SIKHS.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1846. Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to Gholab Singh.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

----------CASHMERE: End----------

CASIMIR I., King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058. Casimir II., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194. Casimir III. (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370. Casimir IV., King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492. Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.

CASKET GIRLS, The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.

CASKET LETTERS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).

An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built so near to the eastern end of its territory."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

CASSANDER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280; also Greece: B. C. 321-312.

CASSANO, Battles of (1705 and 1799).

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713, and France: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

CASSEL: A. D. 1383. Burned by the French.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

CASSEL, Battles of (1328 and 1677).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1328, and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

CASSIAN ROAD.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.

CASSII, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons whose territory was near the Thames.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CASSITERIDES, The.

The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.

_Charles Elton, Origins of English History._

ALSO IN: _J. Rhys, Celtic Britain._

CASSOPIANS.

See EPIRUS.

CASTALIAN SPRING.

A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the temple of Apollo at Delphi.

CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA, The.

"The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas, the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred duty. The individual had no existence independent of the family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists in India to this day. … The Hindus are divided into an infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans, or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or whether it originated in a religious investiture from which the Sudras were excluded."

J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 3, pages 114 and 64.

{397}

"Among the delusions about modern India which it seems impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although there have been many changes in the system of caste, it remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a divinely constituted organization. To what extent the religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting, organised social groups—trading, manufacturing, cultivating. In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade, every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon, or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting 'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000 members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans, Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000; nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest. There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr. Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous. … The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not, however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers, cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions, 'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of 1857 were commonly known by the English in India. … Mr. Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how completely it is true that caste is a social and not a religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the convert."

Sir J. Strachey, India, lecture 8.

ALSO IN: M. Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India, chapter 18.

Sir A. C. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, chapter 7.

Sir H. S. Maine, Village Communities, chapter 2.

CASTEL

See MOGONTIACUM.

CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873, and 1873-1885.

CASTELFIDARDO, Battle of (1860).

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

CASTELLANO.

See SPANISH COINS.

CASTIGLIONE, Battle of.

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

CASTILE: Early inhabitants of.

See CELTIBERIANS.

CASTILE: A. D. 713-1230. Origin and rise of the kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737, and 1026-1230.

CASTILE: A. D. 1140. Separation of Portugal as an independent kingdom.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

CASTILE: A. D. 1169. The first Cortes. The old monarchical constitution.

See CORTES.

CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238. Progress of arms. Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon. Conquest of Cordova. Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350. Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three successors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369. Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.

See SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476. Under the house of Trastamare. Discord and civil war. The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to Ferdinand of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CASTILE: A. D. 1515. Incorporation of Navarre with the kingdom.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

CASTILE: A. D. 1516. The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of Charles V.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------CASTILE: End----------

CASTILLA DEL ORO.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

CASTILLON, Battle of (1450).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D. 135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served since the time of Belisarius. … After the burial of Marcus Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years, the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements and fortifications on and around the building; and since his time it has remained in the possession of the Papal government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms, dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top, was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A. D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict XIV."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: _W. W. Story, Castle St. Angelo._

{398}

CASTLENAUDARI, Battle of (1632).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

CASTLEREAGH, Lord, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain:

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CASTOR WARE.

"Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some twenty square miles in extent. … There are several varieties … and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper colour."

L. Jewett, Grave Mounds, page 152.

CASTRA, Roman.

"When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This field-work was termed Castra. … The form of the camp was a square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out, being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden stakes, (valli-sudes,) a certain number of which were carried by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 12.

CASTRICUM, Battle of.

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

CASTRIOTS, The.

See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI, The despotism of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

CAT NATION, The.

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

CATACOMBS OF ROME, The.

"The Roman Catacombs—a name consecrated by long usage, but having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate geographical one—are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four, or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year 410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these, there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that private family. Originally they all belonged to private families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which still survive. … It has always been agreed among men of learning who have had an opportunity of examining these excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies. Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."

J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions, chapter 13.

CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, The.

The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military adventurers—mercenary soldiers—formed in Sicily during the twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to which they brought their captives, became one of the great slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne, Duke of Athens. {399} He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours." But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost, and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386, when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine, who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2, section 2.

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 7, section 3.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CATALANS: A. D. 1151.

The County of Barcelona united by marriage to Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries. Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

See BARCELONA: 12th-16th CENTURIES.

CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472. Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CATALANS: A. D. 1639-1640. Causes of disaffection and revolt.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652. Revolt. Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown. Annexation to France offered and accepted. Re-subjection to Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642; 1644-1646; 1648-1652.

CATALANS: A. D. 1705. Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

CATALANS: A. D. 1713-1714. Betrayed and deserted by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

----------CATALANS: End----------

CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

CATALONIA.

See CATALANS.

CATANA, OR KATANA, Battle of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CATANIA. Storming and capture by King Ferdinand (1849).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

CATAPAN.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CATAWBAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CATEAU-CAMBRESIS, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CATERANS.

"In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute their Highland name of 'cateran.' … This is the first of a long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the Highlanders."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 27.

CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.

"Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church, were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer, and which has been answered in very different ways. This much, however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with them."

R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediæval Church History, lecture 15.

"In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."

L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times, chapter 1.

See, also, PAULICIANS, and ALBIGENSES.

CATHAY.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).

CATHERINE I., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1725-1727.

CATHERINE II., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1762-1796.

CATHERINE and Jean d'Albret, Queen and King of Navarre, A. D. 1503-1512.

CATHERINE de Medici: her part in French history.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, to 1584-1589.

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE IN FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585 and after.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1572-1679. Persecutions.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1691-1782. Oppression of the Penal Laws.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1778-1780. Repeal of Penal laws. No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796. Persecution by Protestant mobs. Formation of the Orange Society.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1801. Pitt's promises broken by the King.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829. Emancipation from civil disabilities.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

{400}

CATHOLICS, Old.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

CATILINE, The Conspiracy of.

See ROME: B. C. 63.

CATINI, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CATO THE YOUNGER, and the last years of the Roman Republic.

See ROME: B. C. 63-58, to 47-46.

CATO STREET CONSPIRACY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CATRAIL, The.

An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.

CATTANI. VASSALI. MASNADA. SERVI.

The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to have included every rank of person in the different Italian states according to the quality of the chief; but without any degradation of character being attached to such employment. This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy, and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at constant war with each other they sought every means of creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi' and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' … Some slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the 'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown, and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The 'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. … This union [as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,' so often recurring in early Italian history; for the commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the Carroccio. … Besides these military Villains, who were also called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every respect except that of their superior utility and value: the former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the 13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, volume 1, page 624.

CATTI, The.

See CHATTI.

CATUVELLANI, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CAUCASUS AND THE CIRCASSIANS. The Russian conquest.

"The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in 1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony, Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities. … Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols, Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and consequently its secluded valleys contain a population composed of more different and distinct races than any other district in the world. … It was in the 16th century, under Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the final subjugation of the country. … In 1785 [after the partial conquest of 1784—see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name, made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the 'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg. The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides, and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity. {401} Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses, impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians, fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers, but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations, find by forming broad military roads throughout the district, the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance. He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to close his romantic career. He and his family were at first interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard. In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban, or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna, and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects. Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed their fellow-countrymen in 1874."

H. M. Chester, Russia, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: F. Mayne, Life of Nicholas I., part 1, chapters 11 and 14.

S. M. Schmucker, Life and Reign of Nicholas I., chapter 21.

CAUCASUS, The Indian.

"The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world. Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have at once concluded that this could be no other than the Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the Indian Caucasus."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 12, note Q.

CAUCI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

CAUCUS. In 1634—the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts Bay—the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor, a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the court—the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, volume 1, page 224.

See also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

CAUDINE FORKS, The Romans at the.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.

A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster, which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the time of Leland."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CAVALIERS, The party of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER); also, ROUNDHEADS.

CAVE DWELLERS.

"We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium, Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the small dark-haired peoples of Europe."

W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting, page 430.

CAVE OF ADULLAM.

See ADULLAM, CAVE OF.

CAVOUR, Count, and the unification of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

CAVOUR, Treaty of (1561).

See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857. Siege by the Sepoy mutineers. Surrender and massacre of the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST), and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

CAXTON PRESS, The.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.

CAYENNE, Colonization of.

See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

CAYUGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CEADAS, The.

See BARATHRUM.

CEBRENES, The.

See TROJA.

CECIL, Sir William (Lord Burleigh), The reign of Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

CECORA, Battle of (1621).

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CECROPIA. CECROPIAN HILL. The Acropolis of Athens.

See ATTICA.

{402}

CEDAR CREEK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

CEDAR MOUNTAIN OR CEDAR RUN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

CELESTINE II., Pope, A. D. 1143-1144.

CELESTINE III., Pope, A. D. 1191-1198.

CELESTINE IV., Pope, A. D. 1241.

CELESTINE V., Pope, A. D. 1294, July to December.

CELTIBERIANS, The.

"The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in the Spanish peninsula."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 1.

"The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of Celtic characteristics in the people."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 6, note.

See, also, NUMANTIAN WAR.

CELTS, The.

"The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. … The Celts of antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of the present day, and much territory besides. This people had various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language meant warriors or brave men; … but the Gauls themselves in Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have meant warriors. … The Celtic family, so far back as we can trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. … The national name which the members of this group have always given themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel, pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by themselves Goidel. … The other group is represented in point of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. … The national name of those speaking these dialects was that of Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them, since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to settle in Britain."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 1.

See, also, ARYANS, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

CELTS: Origin and first meaning of the name.

"Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or Iberian Kelts? … I think, that though used to denominate the tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word—as little native as Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. … By the time of Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."

R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.

----------CELTS: Origin: End----------

CELTS.

A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or chisel—whence the name. It has evidently no connection with the word Celt used ethnologically.

CELYDDON, Forest of (or Coed Celydon).

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CENABUM.

See GENABUM.

CENOMANIANS, The.

See INSUBRIANS.

CENSORS, The Roman.

"The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to take a register of the citizens and of their property; but this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a political power of the highest importance. The censors made out the returns of the free population; but they did more; they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians, consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. … From thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen was really worthy of retaining his rank. … If a man behaved tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high; or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. … The censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted. … With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet … the censors might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 17.

See, also, LUSTRUM.

{403}

CENTRAL AMERICA: Ruins of ancient civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES; also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

CENTRAL AMERICA: Discovery and early settlement.

See AMERICAN: A. D. 1498-1505; 1500-1511; 1513-1517.

CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871. Separation from Spain, and Independence. Attempted federation and its failures. Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.

"The central part of the American continent, extending from the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama, consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies, all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected part of the Spanish Empire. … Central America has no history up to the epoch of independence. … It was not until the success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in 1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer. Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its independence, together with one of the departments of Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned to Spain. … The Revolution of Central America thus stands alone in the history of independence, as having been accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central American states were annexed to it, though with strong resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas, withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican officials as only a year before they had driven out the Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of forming a government for themselves: and … they now resolved on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common interest. A Central American federation, however, was an imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the 'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. … A constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This constitution is remarkable for having been the first which abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the slave trade to be piracy. … The clerical and oligarchic party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras] reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community, but of no great political importance, and separated by mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than the first. The chief representative of the Federalist principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847 that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador, and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle, and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical party all over Central America. … The government of each state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere frequent: and ultimately … the whole country was near falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English government had maintained some connection with the country [originating with the buccaneers and made important by the mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan. Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 21.

ALSO IN: _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States._

----------CENTRAL AMERICA: End----------

{404}

CENTRAL ASIA.

See ASIA, CENTRAL.

CENTRE, The.

See RIGHT, &c.

CENTREVILLE, Evacuation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

CENTURIES, Roman.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

CENTURION.

The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or companies in a Roman legion of the empire.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

CENWULF, King of Mercia, A. D. 794-819.

CEORL.

See EORL, and ETHEL.

CEPEDA, Battle of(1859).

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

CEPHISSUS, Battle of the (A. D. 1311).

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted the central market of the city. … They [the Pisistratidæ] connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and country were calculated the distances to the different country districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries of the common fatherland. … [In the next century—in the age of Pericles—the population had extended to the north and west and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most splendid gate of the city. … Here the broad carriage-road which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus, entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. … From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched off that which led to the Academy. … The high roads in the vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different battle-fields at home and abroad."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 3.

CERESTES, OR KERESTES, Battle of (1596).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

CERIGNOLA, Battle of (1503).

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

CERISOLES, Battle of (1544).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CERONES, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CERRO GORDO, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CESS.

A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax; used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during the persecution of the Covenanters.

J. H. Thompson, A Cloud of Witnesses, page 67.

The Imp. Diet.

CEUTA, A. D. 1415. Siege and capture by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CEUTA: A. D. 1668. Ceded to Spain.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

----------CEUTA: End----------

CÉVENNES, The prophets of the (or the Cévenol prophets). The Camisards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CEYLON, 3d Century B. C. Conversion to Buddhism.

See INDIA: B. C. 312-.

CEYLON: A. D. 1802. Permanent acquisition by England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

----------CEYLON: End----------

CHACABUCO, Battle of (1817).

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

CHACO, The Gran.

See GRAN CHACO.

CHÆRONEA, Battles of (B. C. 338).

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CHAGAN.

See KUAN.

CHA'HTAS, OR CHOCTAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHALCEDON.

An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters. It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 258. Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 616-625. The Persians in possession.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

----------CHALCEDON: End----------

CHALCEDON, The Council of (A. D. 451).

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

"The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa, among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus, Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,' rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale, Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most important of the many treasures of the island—its copper. … Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in European Greece."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.

The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields" which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many other states came to take part in it, that, "according to Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian war."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 1, book 2, chapter 1.

Chalcis was subdued by the Athenians in B. C. 506.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506; also KLERUCHS, and EUBŒA.

{405}

CHALCUS.

See TALENT.

CHALDEA. CHALDEES.

See BABYLONIA.

CHALDEAN CHURCH.

See NESTORIANS.

CHALDIRAN, Battle of (1514).

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CHALGROVE FIELD, Fall of Hampden at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

CHALONS, Battles at (A. D. 271).

Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne—"the thirty tyrants," as they were called—of the distracted reign of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to pieces.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CHALONS: A. D. 366.

See ALEMANNI, INVASION OF GAUL BY THE.

CHALONS: A. D. 451.

See HUNS: A. D. 451, ATTILA'S INVASION OF GAUL.

----------CHALONS: End----------

CHALYBES, The.

The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys, who were noted as workers of iron.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 22, note A.

CHAMAVI, The.

See BRUCTERI; also, FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

CHAMBERS OF REANNEXATON, French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

CHAMBERSBURG, Burning of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

CHAMPAGNE: Origin of the county.

In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'—a most appropriate descriptive denomination of the region—an extension of the plains of Flanders—but not yet employed politically as designating a province—was protected against Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum Theodorici—Château Thierry. … Herbert's profuse promises induced the commander to betray his duty. … Herbert, through this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne during three generations, until some time after the accession of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of Vermandois to the House of Blois."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 2, page 192.

CHAMPEAUBERT, Battle of.

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

CHAMPIGNY, Sortie of(1870).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

CHAMPION'S HILL, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

CHAMPLAIN, Samuel. Explorations and Colonizations.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605; 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1776. Arnold's naval battle with Carleton.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1814. Macdonough's naval victory.

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

----------CHAMPLAIN, End----------

CHAMPS DE MARS. CHAMPS DE MAI.

When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their captains to gather for the planning and preparing of campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring—in March. "But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called Champs de Mai."

E. E. Crowe, History of France, chapter 1.

See, also, MALLUM, and PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

CHANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CHANCELLOR, The.

"The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the royal household was carried on, claims a considerable antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns, succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief of a large body of such officers associated under the name of the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. … The chancellor was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 121.

{406}

"In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King. … At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the following reign that it can be said to have been permanently established."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, pages 173-174.

"The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by prescription."

A. C. Ewald, The Crown and its Advisers, lecture 2.

ALSO IN: E. Fischel, The English Constitution, book 5, chapter 7.

CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.

See EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS.

CHANCELLORSVILLE, Battles of.

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

CHANCERY.

See CHANCELLOR.

CHANDRAGUPTA, OR CANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.

See INDIA: B. C. 327-312, and 312.

CHANEERS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CHANTILLY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

CHANTRY PRIESTS.

"With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good of their souls in perpetuity. … Large sums of money were … devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. … The character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page viii.

CHAOUANONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

CHAPAS, OR CHAPANECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, &c.

CHAPULTEPEC, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CHARCAS, Las.

The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia. Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province of Potosi.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777; and BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.

CHARIBERT I., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567. Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.

CHARITON RIVER, Battle of.

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

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814; ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800; LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774; SAXONS: A. D. 772-804; AVARS: 791-805; and SPAIN: A. D. 778.

CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

See SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1667. Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1668. Ceded to France.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1679. Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1693. Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1697. Restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1713. Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1746-1748. Taken by French and ceded to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747, and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------CHARLEROI: End----------

CHARLES (called The Great—Charlemagne), King of Neustria, A. D. 768; of all the Franks, A. D. 771; of Franks and Lombardy, 774; Emperor of the West, 800-814.

Charles of Austria, Archduke, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL); 1797 (APRIL-MAY); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL); 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER); also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

Charles of Bourbon, King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1734-1759.

Charles (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1467-1477.

Charles I., King of England, 1625-1649. Trial and execution.

See ENGLAND: A. D.1649 (JANUARY).

Charles I. (of Anjou), King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282; King of Naples, 1282-1285.

Charles I., King of Portugal, 1889-.

Charles II. (called The Bald), Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877; King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.

Charles II., King of England, 1660-1685. (By a loyal fiction, supposed to have reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded; though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).

Charles II., King of Naples, 1285-1309.

Charles II., King of Navarre, 1349-1387.

Charles II., King of Spain, 1665-1700.

Charles III. (called The Fat), Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany), and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888; King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.

Charles III. (called The Simple), King of France, A. D. 892-929.

Charles III., King of Naples, 1381-1386.

Charles III., King of Navarre, 1387-1425.

Charles III., King of Spain, 1759-1788.

Charles IV., Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378; King of Bohemia, 1346-1378; King of Germany, 1347-1378; King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.

Charles IV., King of France, and of Navarre (Charles I.), 1322-1328.

Charles IV., King of Spain, 1788-1808.

Charles V., Emperor, 1519-1558; Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555; King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples, or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

Charles V. (called The Wise), King of France, 1364-1380.

Charles VI., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1711-1740.

Charles VI. (called The Well-loved), King of France, 1380-1422.

Charles VII. (of Bavaria) Germanic Emperor, 1742-1745.

Charles VII., King of France, 1422-1461.

{407}

Charles VIII., King of France, 1483-1498.

Charles IX., King of France, 1560-1574.

Charles IX., King of Sweden, 1604-1611.

Charles X., King of France (the last of the House of Bourbon), 1824-1830.

Charles X., King of Sweden, 1654-1660.

Charles XI., King of Sweden, 1660-1697.

Charles XII., King of Sweden, 1697-1718.

Charles XIII., King of Sweden, 1809-1818.

Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), King of Sweden, 1818-1844.

Charles XV., King of Sweden, 1859-1872.

Charles Albert, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1831-1849.

Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, 1580-1630.

Charles Emanuel II., Duke of Savoy, 1638-1675.

Charles Emanuel III., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1730-1773.

Charles Emanuel IV., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1796-1802.

Charles Felix, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1821-1831.

Charles Martel, Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace (of the King of the Franks), A. D. 715-741.

Charles Robert, or Charobert, or Caribert, King of Hungary, 1308-1342.

Charles Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1161-1167.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680. The founding of the city.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1706. Unsuccessful attack by the French.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776. Revolutionary proceedings.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 and 1776.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776. Sir Henry Clinton's attack and repulse.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780. Siege by the British. Surrender of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860. The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860. The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860. Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April). The Beginning of war. Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April). The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July). The Union troops on Morris Island. Assault on Fort Wagner.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December). Siege of Fort Wagner. Bombardment of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February). Evacuation by the Confederates. Occupation by Federal troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

----------CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: End----------

CHARLESTOWN, Massachusetts: A. D. 1623. The first settlement.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CHARTER OAK, The.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

CHARTER OF FORESTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.

See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHARTISTS. CHARTISM.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842 and 1848.

CHARTRES, Defeat of the Normans at.

The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 5.

CHARTREUSE, La Grande.

See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHASIDIM, OR CHASIDEES, OR ASSIDEANS, The.

A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is represented by Ewald (History of Israel, book 5, section 2) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view, were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety, yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.

A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia, and Wallachia.

H. C. Adams, History of the Jews, page 333.

ALSO IN: H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 5, chapter 9.

CHASUARII, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

CHÂTEAU CAMBRESIS, Treaty of (1559):

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.

This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to cover his Norman capital. … The easy reduction of Normandy on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's foresight."

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 2, section 9.

CHATEAU THIERRY, Battle of.

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

CHATEAUVIEUX, Fête to the soldiers of.

See LIBERTY CAP.

CHATHAM, Lord; Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763, and 1765-1768.

And the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHATILLON, Battles of (1793).

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

CHATILLON-SUR-SEINE, Congress of.

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

{408}

CHATTANOOGA: The name.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1862. Secured by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (August). Evacuation by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November). The siege. The battle on Lookout Mountain. The assault of Missionary Ridge. The Routing of Bragg's army.

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

----------CHATTANOOGA: End----------

CHATTI, OR CATTI, The.

"Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches. They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage, mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and sagacity. … Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti to a campaign."

"The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia, Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this hypothesis by no means improbable."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, and note.

See, also, SUEVI.

CHAUCER, and his times.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.

CHAUCI AND CHERUSCI, The.

"The tribe of the Chauci … beginning at the Frisian settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without ambition, without lawless violence, … the crowning proof of their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their superiority without harm to others. … Dwelling on one side of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished, unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This was more pleasant than safe, … and so the Cherusci, ever reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."

"The settlements of the Chauci … must have included almost the entire country between the Ems and the Weser—that is, Oldenburg and part of Hanover—and have taken in portions of Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci … appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus, was a Cheruscan chief. … The Fosi … must have occupied part of Hanover."

Tacitus, Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with Geographical notes.

Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the general name "Saxon."

See SAXONS.

CHAZARS, The.

See KHAZARS.

CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CHEBUCTO.

The original name of the harbor chosen for the site of the city of Halifax.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.

CHEIROTONIA.

A vote by show of hands, among the ancient Greeks.

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

CHEMI.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

CHEMNITZ, Battle of (1639).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

CHERBOURG. Destroyed by the English.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-AUGUST).

CHEROKEE WAR, The.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

CHEROKEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHEROKEES.

CHERRONESUS, The proposed State of.

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

CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)

CHERSON.

See BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.

CHERSON: A. D. 988. Taken by the Russians.

"A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. … Cherson retained its position as an independent State until the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but, even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government. But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade, and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in 988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed him how to cut off the water. … Vladimir obtained the hand of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of Cherson."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057._

CHERSONESE, The Golden.

See CHRYSE.

CHERSONESUS.

The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont and the Gulf of Melas.

CHERUSCI, The.

See CHAUCI.

{409}

CHESAPEAKE AND SHANNON, The fight of the.

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

CHESS, Origin of the game of.

"If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque, or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. … After this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."

F. Max Müller, Biography of Words, chapter 4.

CHESTER, Origin of.

See DEVA.

CHESTER, The Palatine Earldom.

See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES; also WALES, PRINCE OF.

CHESTER, Battle of.

One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.

CHEVY CHASE.

See OTTER BURN, BATTLE OF.

CHEYENNES, OR SHEYENNES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CHIAPAS: Ruins of ancient civilization in.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

CHIARI, Battle Of(1701).

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CHIBCHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.

Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of the retreating garrison.

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

CHICAGO: A. D. 1860. The Republican National Convention. Nomination of Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1871. The great Fire.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us