Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 124)

J. L. von Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, 3d Century, sections 32-33.

NÖFELS, NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

Battle of (1799).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NOLA, Battle of (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

NOMBRE DE DIOS: Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

NOMEN, COGNOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

See GENS.

NOMES.

A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt was divided from very ancient times.

NOMOPHYLAKES.

In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or "Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents, both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws. They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act according to law."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 46.

NOMOTHETÆ, The.

A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing laws or enact new ones.

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

NONCONFORMISTS, DISSENTERS, English: First bodies organized. Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.- Removal of Disabilities.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665; 1672-1673; 1711-1714; 1827-1828.

NONES.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.

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

NONJURORS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

NOOTKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

NOPH.

See MEMPHIS.

NÖRDLINGEN, Siege and Battle (1634).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

NORE, Mutiny at the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NOREMBEGA.

See NORUMBEGA.

—————NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: Start————

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776. Bombardment and destruction.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779. Pillaged by British marauders.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April). Abandoned by the United States commandant. Destruction of ships and property. Possession taken by the Rebels.

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

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February). Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

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

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May). Evacuated by the Confederates.

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

—————NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: End————

NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NORICUM.

See PANNONIA; also, RHÆTIANS.

—————NORMANDY: Start————

NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911. Rollo's conquest and occupation.

See NORMANS. NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.

{2365}

NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000. The solidifying of Rollo's duchy. The Normans become French.

The first century which passed after the settlement of the Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced order and justice on the new community, as well as to the political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword [son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943] clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled down the temper and traditions which their people had brought from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours' religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will; once the German lances were seen from the walls of their capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those without. The subject population which had been trodden under foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent. The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from without the dukes held firm to their course, and their stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword. As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely to the French crown."

J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, chapter 8.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063. Duke William establishes his authority.

Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord. "It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately, and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other. So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. … When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux. William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine, and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time before his conquest of England."

E. A. Freeman, Short History of the Norman Conquest, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, chapter 8.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 2, chapter 4.

{2366}

NORMANDY: A. D. 1066. Duke William becomes King of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135. Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1096. The Crusade of Duke Robert.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205. Wrested from England and restored to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224; and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1419. Conquest by Henry V. of England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1449. Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

NORMANDY: 16th Century. Spread of the Reformation. Strength of Protestantism.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

—————NORMANS: Start————

NORMANS. NORTH MEN: Name and Origin.

"The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans, according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests, were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway, two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

A. Thierry, Conquest of England by the Normans, book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, The Early Kings of Norway.

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries. The Vikings and what sent them to sea.

"No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds, threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came, had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him. Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships; the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case, occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,' and at one time or another in his life almost every man of note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking life."

G. W. Dasent, Story of Burnt Njal, volume 2, appendix.

"Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that, among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians, like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad. … The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and their more immediate contact with Germany account for the frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

W. Roos, The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions (English History Review, April, 1892).

ALSO IN: S. Laing, Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla.

C. F. Keary, The Vikings of Western Christendom, chapter 5.

P. B. Du Chaillu, The Viking Age.

See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

{2367}

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries. The island empire of the Vikings.

We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally with their geographical position. 1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland. 2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland. 3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new importance, and their character is changed. Many of those driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom, Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates. The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser, Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy, who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. … Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D. 875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man, Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar (grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin. Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the Danish Northumbria."

A. H. Johnson, The Normans in Europe, chapter 2.

"Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar] the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were established all over the island before the arrival of the Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation, fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an honourable profession, in the exercise of which these islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of Europe under heavy contributions."

D. Macpherson, Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History (Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note).

See, also, IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.

NORMANS: A. D. 787-880. The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

"In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain, though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.' Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark. The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as, owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, page 68, foot-note.

Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into three periods: 1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which began A. D. 787. 2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to the Peace of Wedmore, 880. 3. The later period of conquest, within which England was governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

ALSO IN: C. F. Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom, chapters 6 and 12.

NORMANS: A. D. 841. First expedition up the Seine.

In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to touch the tempting country through which they passed, until the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered. Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued. … Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly successful. {2368} Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns, dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. F. Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom, chapter 9.

NORMANS: A. D. 845-861. Repeated ravages in the Seine. Paris thrice sacked.

See PARIS; A. D. 845; and 857-861.

NORMANS: A. D. 849-860. The career of Hasting.

"About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his origin, by the middle of the century he had established his title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time. The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder. This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid in great measure to the account of the thirty years of proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony, and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting seems to have been filled with a double portion of this spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses by the plunder of Provence."

T. Hughes, Alfred the Great, chapter 20.

NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100. The discovery and settlement of Iceland. Development of the Saga literature.

The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears. "Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64), 'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000 souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters and proletarians."

R. F. Burton, Ultima Thule, introduction, section 3 (volume 1).

"About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth, and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure, that it could only have been with the common consent of the great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local Things.

See THING.

The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin. "Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June, but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed. {2369} It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a Commonwealth in Iceland."

G. W. Dasent, The Story of Burnt Njal, introduction (volume 1).

"The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a position in the world's history and literature, must be sought in the events which took place in Norway at the time when Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set out with their families and followers to find a home where they might be as free and independent as their fathers had been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000], and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste for history gave the literature the direction which it afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions and circumstances which produced that remarkable development of the historical taste with which the people were endowed, and made Iceland the home of the saga."

F. W. Horn, History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North, part 1, chapter 1.

"The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship, says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes, and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally 'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude nations."

T. Carlyle, Early Kings of Norway, Preface.

See, also, THINGS. THINGVALLA.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-911. Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.

"One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was destined to play a real part in history. This was the settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou, sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own, which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul. But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was probably not expected to be more lasting or more important than the others. But, while the others soon lost any distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew, it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man, but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space. We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions, unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time before his final settlement. He is described as having been engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. … The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years, that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic, the under-garment of the Virgin. {2370} But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England, his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911] was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And, just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf … had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen. The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Norman Conquest of England, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapters 3-5.

A. Thierry, Norman Conquest of England, book 2.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-984. Discovery and settlement of Greenland.

"The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man, by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

R. B. Anderson, America not Discovered by Columbus, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: D. Crantz, History of Greenland, book 4, chapter 1.

NORMANS: A. D. 885-886. The Great Siege of Paris.

See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries. The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.

See IRELAND: 9-10th CENTURIES and A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries. The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.

"Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces, districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant, or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities, the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They constitute three principal schemes of naval and military operations, respectively governed and guided by the great rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt, and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour, frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to Bourges."

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

{2371}

ALSO IN: C. F. Keary, The Vikings in Western Christendom, chapters 9-15.

NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016. The Danish conquest of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011. Supposed voyages to America.

See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.

NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries. The breaking up of the Norse island empire.

"At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES] became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys, attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast. But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans [from England] who had just made a settlement there, he crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry. After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons. Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the 13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the 11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland. Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the independence of the north of Scotland against the southern king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of Norway."

A. H. Johnson, The Normans in Europe, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 2).

See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063. The Northmen in France become French.

See NORMANDY; A. D. 911-1000; and 1035-1063.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194. Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090; and 1081-1194.

NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042. The reign of the Danish kings in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071. Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085. Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

NORMANS: A. D. 1084. The sack and burning of Rome.

See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

NORMANS: A. D. 1146. Ravages in Greece.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

NORMANS: A. D. 1504. Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

—————NORMANS: End————

NORTH, Lord, Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1770, to 1782-1783.

NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.

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

NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

—————NORTH CAROLINA: Start————

NORTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH, SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524. Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587. Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629. The grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663. Pioneer and unorganized colonization.

"An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and the official information received, did not, however, suffice to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by which possession might be obtained of the neighboring territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies, crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South. {2372} New England enterprise explored the American coast from one end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about, with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

H. C. Lodge, Short History of the English Colonies, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 2.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670. The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others. The organized colonies.

"On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward, Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William, Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley [Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,' were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and, was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

J. H. Wheeler, Historical Sketches of North Carolina, chapter 4.

"The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. … Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that 'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31 miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward, sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been appointed governor of that part of the coast lying southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August, 1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them to be surveyed with accuracy. {2373} On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore, turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal travelled northward; and so the colonists from both settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In 1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people, with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the southern part of the province, and also the port for all commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon. … We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the power to make laws, but a large share of the executive authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at this period, when the province may be said to have had, for the first time, a system of regular government, there was in it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of the political creed of our whole country, without distinction of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were contented and happy during the early part of Stephens' administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not to last. We have now reached a period in our history which illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare 'the fundamental constitutions.'"

F. L. Hawks, History of North Carolina, volume 2, pages 441-462.

ALSO IN: W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of thee United States, volume 2, chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693. The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke, and their failure.

The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury, Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers, the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest expectations were entertained in consequence of his co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather with books than men—with the abstract rather than the practical in government and society. And this judgment is certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of the country, or the class of people which subsequently made their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the first settlers left them generally without the means of procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a miserable mockery, or something worse."

W. G. Simms, History of South Carolina, book 2, chapter 1.

"The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670. To a colony of which the majority were likely to be dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in England, where the model became the theme of extravagant applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve, and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient settlements. {2374} The assembly had already met and had framed some important laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the existing system, which it could not replace. The proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists, superseded the existing government, and the colonists resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many years.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted by the charter, without regard to the fundamental constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect, the government went on much as before. Each of the proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the council in either province, over which the governor presided as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment belonged."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 21 (volume 2).

The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in volume 10 of several prior editions.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729. Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony. End of the Proprietary Government.

In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him, tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it, and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for government which was one of the leading characteristics of the colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as 'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these cases provision was made for the appointment of separate Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first event occurred which throws any clear light from without on the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all … deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end. The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors, then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the ordinary state of a crown colony."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas, chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710. Palatine colonization at New Berne.

See PALATINES.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714. Indian rising and massacre of colonists. Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740. War with the Spaniards in Florida.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761. The Cherokee War.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Stamp Act. The First Continental Congress. The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend Duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2375}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771. The insurrection of the Regulators. Battle of Alamance.

Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a population generally poor and ignorant. These people complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they formed associations which not only refused the payment of taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers, judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts. The common name of Regulators designated, in the two Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of their leaders, who had been elected a member. After negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers, marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin, anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and with such success that they became, in the end, staunch supporters of the royal authority."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, chapter 29 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: F. X. Martin, History of North Carolina, chapters 7-8.

J. H. Wheeler, History of North Carolina, chapter 8.

F. L. Hawks, Battle of the Alamance (Revised History of North Carolina).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774. Opening events of the Revolution.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772. The first settlement of Tennessee. The Watauga Association.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. Action on the news. Ticonderoga. The Siege of Boston. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May). The Mecklenburg Declaration.

"It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that time, but not venturing on the field of independency further than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii, 619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his 'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819 copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions were passed on the 20th."

J. Winsor, Note in Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, page 256.

"We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where discussion was had on the subject of independence, and probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at, which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st. If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting, destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man, fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

H. S. Randall, Life of Jefferson, volume 3, appendix 2.

ALSO IN: W. A. Graham, Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875.

F. L. Hawks, The Mecklenburg Declaration (Revised History of Georgia).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776. The arming of the loyalist Highlanders and their defeat at Moore's Creek. The first colony vote for independence.

"North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia, and vested the public authority in a provincial council for the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and county and town committees. A large portion of the people were adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might be gained to the royal side. {2376} The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was under his command: and this place on the 27th of February [1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were victorious. They captured a great quantity of military supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the 4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble … and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies in declaring independency and forming foreign alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of appointing delegates in a general representation of the colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia, were in solid array against it. The example was warmly welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

R. Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 10.

D. L. Swain, British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776 (Revised History of North Carolina).

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A: D. 1776 (JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776. Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780. Independence declared. Adoption of State Constitution. The war in the North. British conquest of Georgia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783. The war in the South. Greene's campaign. King's Mountain. The Cowpens. Guilford Court House. Hobkirk's Hill. Eutaw Springs. Yorktown. Peace.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784. Revolt of the Tennessee settlements against their cession to Congress.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788. The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers. Its brief and troubled history.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786. Importation of Negroes discouraged.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1789. Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790. Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee) to the United States.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796; also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May). The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

"A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of Secession December 20, 1860.]

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January, a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state. The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time, the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The majority against it was 662. This majority against a convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in regard to secession. The true test was the votes received, respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for secession. The legislature was called together in extra session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of the month. The election took place accordingly, and the delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for granted."

S. S. Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, pages 119-120.

ALSO IN: J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 2, chapter 5.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

{2377}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April). Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August). Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April). Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort by the Union forces.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May). Appointment of a Military Governor.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May). Exploits of the ram Albemarle. Confederate capture of Plymouth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October). Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January). The capture of Fort Fisher.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March). Sherman's March. The Battle of Bentonsville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March). Federal occupation of Wilmington. Battle of Kinston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May). Provisional government under President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868. Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

—————NORTH CAROLINA: End————

NORTH DAKOTA: Admission to the Union (1889).

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

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

NORTH RIVER, The.

See SOUTH RIVER.

NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.

One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460. The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight to the north.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

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

NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NORTHMEN.

See NORMANS.

—————NORTHUMBRIA: Start————

NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.

The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes, sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending from the Humber to the Forth.

See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.

NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries. Lothian joined to Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.

—————NORTHUMBRIA: End————

NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

"The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and British Columbia has been formed into four provisional districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and a Council of five members subject to instructions given by Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

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

—————NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start————

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The Old.

"This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that, whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest. The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence. It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first important conquest during the Revolution itself."

T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, pages 32-33.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751. Early French exploration and occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735; also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763. Struggle of the French and English for possession.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755; and CANADA: A. D. 1758.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763. Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris. Possession taken.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES; and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

{2378}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763. The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

"On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies, namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and 'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec did not vary materially from those of the present province of that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory, the region north of the great lakes, and the country between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes. The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,' etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty, immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the western extent of settlements to such a distance from the sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of North America has been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies; and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought on the American Revolution."

W. F. Poole, The West, from 1763 to 1783 (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 9).

"The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

R. King, Ohio, chapter 5.

The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in

Force's American Archives, series 4, volume 1, page 172.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764. Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768. The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix. Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774. The territorial claims of Virginia. Lord Dunmore's War.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774; also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774. Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779. Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

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

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786. Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States to the United States.

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

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784. Jefferson's plan for new States.

"The condition of the northwestern territory had long been under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it, and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee, over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to a garden, have never in their lives heard the words pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania. {2379} It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width, and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps, Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky, and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the 39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois, and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined, a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House. Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other because it was a public expression of the dread with which our ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."