Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 12)

W. R. Staples, Annals of the town of Providence, chapter 7.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647. Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

"Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.' It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife. Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In 1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable, flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to his principles of toleration and would not take part in any attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts. {2642} Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, pages 163-168.

"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory … purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston, Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently, when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers had now returned, though not named in the charter, was admitted to its privileges."

C. Deane, New England (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 9).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652. Coddington's usurpation. Second mission of Roger Williams to England. Restoration of the Charter. First enactment against Slavery.

In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President some time before, but who had gone to England without legally entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston. … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission. On the success of their application hung the fate of the Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered … that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,' and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. … Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission for the colony to act under the charter until the final decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully restored."

G. W. Greene, Short History of Rhode Island, chapter 6.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656. Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663. The Charter from Charles II, and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

"At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke. His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words 'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they naturally desired that their property should be placed under the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however, maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles wide, and extending in length from the southern border of Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a negotiation which issued, after several months, in a composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which said river should, for the future, be also called, alias, Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed of her domain." {2643} On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' … Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between the inharmonious neighbors."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: S. S. Rider, Book Notes, volume 10, pages 109-110.

S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Island, chapter 8 (volume 1).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683. Death of Roger Williams. Estimates of his character.

Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have died without property, dependent upon his children. His son, Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. … If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is certain, however, that he died at some time between January 16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his age."

J. D. Knowles, Memoir of Roger Williams, pages 111 and 354.

"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He was not the first to discover the principles of religious liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their plenitude, and to found and build up a political community with those principles as the basis of its organization. The influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious liberty and democratic government upon the political system of our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in the government of a small community. It was prophesied that the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be of short duration. But these institutions have not only maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia, the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe, and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

O. S. Straus, Roger Williams, page 233.

"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was 'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are 'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not accomplish the work they are here to do."

C. F. Adams, Massachusetts: its Historians and its History, page 25.

"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages. Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait, the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him; for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form, always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous, turbulent, even seditious."

M. C. Tyler, History of American Literature, chapter 9, section 4.

{2644}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686. The consolidation of New England under Governor-general Andros.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701. The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690. King William's War. The first Colonial Congress.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747. The founding of the Redwood Library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act and its repeal. The Declaratory Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764. The founding of Brown University.

Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend Duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772. The destruction of the Gaspe. The first overt act of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act, and the Quebec Act.- The First Continental Congress.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774. The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

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

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775. Early naval enterprises in the war.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776 BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776. Allegiance to the king renounced. State independence declared. The British occupation.

"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a national salute and military display. At Providence the King's arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title, 'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a British army of her principal island. The seat of government was removed to Providence."

G. W. Greene, Short History of Rhode Island, chapters 24-25.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783. The War of Independence to the end. Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778. Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790. After the War of Independence. Paper-money. Opposition to the Federal Constitution. Tardy entrance into the Union. Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

"The first question was how to replenish the exhausted treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against the commercial class; and the former party had a large majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional, they were brought before that august General Assembly, and tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional authority was higher than legislative authority. At last, however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed. Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the 'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual liberty as a matter of her own interest. {2645} Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but that method was a failure. As state after state came into the Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud demonstration, celebrated the event."

G. L. Harney, How Rhode Island received the Constitution (New England Magazine, May, 1890).

"The country party was in power, and we have seen that elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural population that hated change. The action of the other states had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution, even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal constitution should be ratified in the different states by conventions of delegates elected by the people for that purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788, the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state has been singular from her sister states in the mode of collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution, it was not done with the least design to give any offence to the respectable body who composed the convention, or a disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure republican principles, founded upon that basis of all governments originally derived from the body of the people at large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general, conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which could well be added and adapted to the present confederation. They are sensible that the present powers invested with Congress are incompetent for the great national government of the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the voters of the country was undoubtedly against the constitution, but convention after convention was carried by the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789. Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year, sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward that form of government from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then, that with these impressions, they should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation, to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it as a constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island, though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for other highly important provisions."

H. Rogers, Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890).

{2646}

The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and there completed its work.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843. The Dorr Rebellion. The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its cities increased in population, became causes of great popular discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry through a revision of the constitution independently of legislative action. A convention was held in October of that year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast, and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor, and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the result might have been different. This was the course desired and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves, disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of success. While the People's government was being organized in Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in the state and calling on the President for aid, which was … declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the General Assembly had called still another convention, which met in September and … framed the present constitution, making an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped, issued an address explaining and justifying his course and announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island. Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail, without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party. Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury, while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty, and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr. Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his father's house, which he had not entered since he began his contest for the establishment of the People's constitution. The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause, congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and much suffering."

C. H. Payne, The Great Dorr War (New England Magazine, June, 1890).

ALSO IN: D. King, Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr.

{2647}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888. Constitutional Amendment. The qualification of the Suffrage.

"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80 years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter. That power was given to the General Assembly. A property qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at first specified to be land, but men of competent estates, without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In 1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money' was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars. Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was practically no change in the qualifications required of a man to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In 1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A convention was called and a constitution was framed and submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and those other native American citizens of other states who had moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes, and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no land. It was taxation without representation, the very principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828 more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832 five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land, had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence, one to every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr. Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but he intended American citizens of other American States. He would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts, who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land. These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men born in countries outside of the United States, became more pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November 1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as all the various propositions had provided with the single exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the People's Constitution:

{2648}

Qualification of Electors under Amendment (Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

Section 1. Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21 years, who has had his residence and home in this State for two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he resides on or before the last day of December, in the year next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings: Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein, valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Qualification of Electors under the People's (Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

Section 1. Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year, and in any town, city or district of the same for six months next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

Section 4. No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation, or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

Section 7. There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters * * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are opened.

It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr, in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

S. S. Rider, The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57).

—————RHODE ISLAND: End————

—————RHODES: Start————

RHODES.

The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce, their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St. John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east, held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however, was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors. … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 20, with foot-note.

RHODES: B. C. 412. Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357. In the new Athenian Confederacy. Revolt and secession. The Social War.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304. Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C. 305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high, sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by 1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant Rhodians.

C. Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times, pages 13-14, 44.

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 59.

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191. Alliance with Rome. War with Antiochus the Great. Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88. Besieged by Mithridates.

At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88, Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was forced to abandon the siege.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapter 20.

RHODES: A. D. 1310. Conquest and occupation by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480. Repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522. Siege and conquest by the Turks. Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

—————RHODES: End————

RHODES, The Colossus of.

"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people, we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon, devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303. Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour, commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 1.

RHODES, Knights of.

During their occupation of the island, the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the 'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not merely by election, but as the representative in the senior line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. … As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 3, page 140.

See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES. RIBBONISM.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

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

RICHARD (of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

—————RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start————

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781. Lafayette's defense of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861. Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862. McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA); (MAY: VIRGINIA); (JUNE: VIRGINIA); (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA); and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March). Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May). Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL). Abandonment by the Confederate army and government. Destructive conflagration. President Lincoln in the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

—————RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End————

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or 'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the Angles.

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 1, note.

RIEL'S REBELLION.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621. Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

In France, and several other continental European countries, political parties in the legislative bodies are named according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each of these parties which partially detaches itself and is designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other, "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions, there is a party of independents who take the name of "The Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

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

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY), and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874; and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI, Origin of the city.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI, The Malatesta family.

See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275. Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 2.

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

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

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then, the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years 511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took the definite form under which it has reached us."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10.

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590. The first attempts at English settlement in America. The lost colony.

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

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862. Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

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

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT, Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU, Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

—————ROCHELLE: Start————

ROCHELLE: Early Importance. Expulsion of the English. Grant of Municipal independence.

"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places of France; it was well known to the English under the name of the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had … enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the period of the English wars.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an early period."

L. von Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy if France, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 14.

{2651}

ALSO IN: H. M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France, volume 2, page 270-273.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568. Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots. Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573. Siege and successful defense.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622. Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn. The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626. Renewed revolt. Second treaty of Montpelier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628. Revolt in alliance with England. Siege and surrender. Richelieu's dyke. The decay of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

—————ROCHELLE: End————

ROCHESTER, England: Origin.

One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof, who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapters 5 and 16.

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643. Siege and Battle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653. Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659. Recovered by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

ROGATION.

With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 4.

ROGER I., Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II., Count of Sicily, 1106-1129; King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ROLAND, The great Bell.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

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

ROLLO, Duke, The conquest of Normandy by.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911; and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE. ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania, Romandiola, or Romagna."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, pages 234 and 238.

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR. ROMAN YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

See PAPACY, and CATHOLICS.

—————ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start————

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Under the Republic.

See CIVES ROMANI; also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Under the Empire.

"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian; but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. … The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous consummation was not effected till fifty years after our present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D. 211-217]."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 67, with foot-note.

—————ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End————

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was but one competition, and that between not more that two competitors."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 15.

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA, AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

—————ROMAN EMPIRE: Start————

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31. Its beginning, and after.

See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476. Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800. Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951. Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

—————ROMAN EMPIRE: End————

—————ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start————

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963. Founded by Otto the Great. Later Origin of the Name.

"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy; or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held a less important place in his mind and his administration. … It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin, under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably two centuries later."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note.

Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage, and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff, by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government to the pope as his viceroy.

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 3, part 1.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 843-951; GERMANY: A. D. 936-973; and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century. Rise of the College of Electors.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century. Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen. The Great Interregnum. Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century. Its character.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806. Its end.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

—————ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End————

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here understand not all branches of law, as constitutional, criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case. They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on the given data according to the general principles of their science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no tincture of non–legal elements."

E. Reich, Graeco-Roman Institutions, pages 3-13.

"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding, but the responses practically modified and even overruled it. A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in fact to be found there. They could be announced by any jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished, have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the legislature. The responses were not published by their author, but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such a system would have popularized the law. This was not the fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous men who were masters of the principles as well as details of jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied; under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to which a response might be given, except the skill and ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal principle could thus be examined, and the result would show the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic. The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia. The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law, and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian, Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of treatises rather than of responses."

T. W. Dwight, Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."

"Apart from the more general political conditions on which jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making, so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating the individual to the interest of the whole further than any state before or since has done, only did and only could do so by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity, which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people; more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was that series of living entombments which the poor man saw yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned and still at the present day reign unadulterated and unmodified."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

{2654}

"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational methods by which person and property may be secured with least inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans, page 209.

"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city. 'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.' Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight of."

Sir F. Pollock, Oxford Lectures, pages 30-32.

"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law, though not descended from the Roman, has been closely assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it. Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the language of the international law or morality which those nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of that system; in their command of its principles; in the readiness with which they recall, and the facility and certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck, 'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages, and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.' And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our science, all results depend on the possession of leading principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate intercourse. {2655} Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be said without exaggeration that they calculate with their ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed. Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by which it is determined; and in the facility with which they pass from the general to the particular and the particular to the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends to the same end."

J. Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence, volume 3, pages 358-361.

"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did. Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England, in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed, requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In German territories the privileged class of civilians were in the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since 1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany. Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England. England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the interests of English liberty to confide the making and interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are not decided according to former judgments given in similar cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to confiding their law to their judges. English common law is judge-made law."

E. Reich, Graeco-Roman Institutions, pages 62-63.

See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS; and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the encomiums it has received."

J. Fiske, American Political Ideas viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History, lecture 2.

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as 'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor, and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England protected by the king's peace. These were called Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete. Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall, which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which the road from London to Dover passes is known as Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. … Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street, or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never became a true Roman road."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 13.

{2656}

"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that time in England four great roads protected by the King's Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively, Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete. These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried, not in the local court, where local influence might interfere with the administration of justice, but before the king's own officers."

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2: The Four Roman Ways.

See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

See ÆMILIAN WAY; APPIAN WAY; AURELIAN ROAD: CASSIAN ROAD; POSTUMIAN ROAD; and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian, from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19 feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike." Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the wild tribes of Caledonia.

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2, page 88-94.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66-67.

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated, taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron, was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur, wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert, accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert. "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin, and put an end to the Latin power, without the change appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the walls of the city."