History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

by J. N. Larned

{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, no. 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, chapter 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, chapter 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, ch.. 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
him-self 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, chapter 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, section 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
U. S., 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, V. 1, book I.
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 Dec. 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 l).
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), chapter 1-16.
J. C. Fremont, Memoirs of my Life, volume 1, chapter 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) chapter 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, Dec. 1877).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.
Gen. 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 Crit. 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), chapter 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 U. S.,
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, trans.
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, chapter 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 N. Am., chapter 34.
ALSO IN:
Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by
Shea, book 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 N. W. 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, chapter 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 l).
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, chapter 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, book 2-4 (volume 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,
ch.3 and 8.
O. H. Marshall, Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against
the Senecas (Hist. 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 l).
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 Mag., 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, chapter 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 U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3), (pt.
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., chapter 10-13.
Doc. History of New York, volume 1-2.
F. Bowen, Life of Sir W. Phips
(Library of American Biog., volume 7), chapter 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,
chapter 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., chapter 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., chapter 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, chapter 5-6.
ALSO IN:
Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 5.
W. Kingsford, History of Canada,
book 6, chapter 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 U. S. (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 U. S., 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, chapter 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, editor, 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, chapter 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, chapter 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 Const. History of Canada,
chapter 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 Gen.
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, chapter 19-29, and volume 2, chapter 1-4.
J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,
chapter 3-5 (Library of American Biog., volume 3).
J. Armstrong, Life of Richard Montgomery
(Lib. of American Biog., 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, chapter 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 Const. 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 Gen. 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 Const. 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 Const.,
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, chapter 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, chapter 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, V. 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 U. S. 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 Am., 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, ch 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, sec. 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 I.
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