Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 25)

A. Crichton, Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern, volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, pages 219-221.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718. Charles XII. in Russia. His ruinous defeat at Pultowa. His refuge among the Turks. His fruitless intrigues. His return to Sweden. His death.

"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September, 1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival, who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of 20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708], strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations, he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the country; Charles, after having endured great privations, turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance. In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care it was entrusted, had been forced into three general engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. {2827} Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works, Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy, while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about 12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards, escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories; the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski, informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia, believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary, warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined, with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic, threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence, in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that he had invaded Norway. {2828} His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who, taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. … While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded Norway a second time, and invested the castle of Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief for the loss

W. C. Taylor, Student's Manual of Modern History, chapter 7, section 6.

ALSO IN: E. Schuyler, Peter the Great, chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2).

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 18.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719. Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721. Constitutional changes. Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War. Swedish cessions of Territory.

"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719], and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families. … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia, Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side, engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement. … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At length, through the mediation of France, conferences were opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed, September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that he had purchased that province."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720. Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel, husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792. Wars with Russia and Prussia. Humiliating powerlessness of the king. The parties of the Hats and the Caps. A constitutional Revolution. Assassination of Gustavus III.

Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a part of that province to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck, and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne. "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania, on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania, he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative authority. {2829} It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members. All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. … The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on regulating the most trifling details of the royal household. This interference was resented by some of the members, belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,' who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign; enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained. On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery. Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the age of three years.

S. A. Dunham, History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730. Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746. Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751. Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766. Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771. Accession of Gustavus Ill.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792. Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795. Peace with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802. The Northern Maritime League. English bombardment of Copenhagen and summary extortion of peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805. Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806. In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810. Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit. Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish Fleet by the English. War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden, and conquest of Finland. Deposition of the Swedish king.

On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia, meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

"There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if England did not before the 1st of November make terms satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal, to close their ports against the English, and were to unite their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr. Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon, that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40 frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of transports, conveying 27,000 land troops. {2830} Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and before the final orders were given, ministers had such information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr. Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August] the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September, however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. … Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England, the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour. One of the most painful features of the case is the confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000. These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which we had carried off."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 1.

In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its failure was made certain by the action of England in taking possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar. "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 455-456 (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).

In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary, and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000 men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind, proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution; Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland, the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want; they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. … As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809, and with France in the following January. Pomerania was restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against all communications with England."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 1.

"The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether 'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a nation which were called into being by the will of the conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The position of that State is best described in his own words. Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.' [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a nation of his own founding. {2831} The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves. All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year. The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire, and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

E. A. Freeman, Finland (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892).

ALSO IN: General Monteith, editor, Narrative of the Conquest of Finland, by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).

C. Joyneville, Life and Times of Alexander I., volume 2, chapter 2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808. Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809. Accession of Charles XIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809. Granting of the Constitution.

See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810. Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince and successor to the throne.

The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte, had some right to expect his support. The son of the late unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession, and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent. Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion, Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt, whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared, had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he was compelled to do, although their character was in most instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid, this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France, not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general, the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case, imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view, he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting, that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that, however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his hand. {2832} It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice, notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall, for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent, being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

Sir W. Scott, Life of Napoleon, volume 2, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: M. de Bourrienne, Private Memoirs of Napoleon, volume 4, chapter 7.

Lady Bloomfield, Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield, volume 1, pages 17-34.

W. G. Meredith, Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810. Alliance with Russia against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813. Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon. Participation in the War of Liberation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814. The Peace of Kiel. Cession of Norway to Sweden and of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel, January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway. Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V. in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet, assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI. also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th 1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had been taken by the English, were restored."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814. The Allies in France and in possession of Paris. Fall of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815. The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been guaranteed complete national independence that she consented to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the 6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain, a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence, the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad), which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The officials, who form what we should call the Government (as distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service), together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing, Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation. There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts, called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about 50,000) form each a separate Amt."

C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians, chapter 13.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815. Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

{2833}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818. Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839. Accession of Christian VIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844. Accession of Oscar I.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848. Accession of Frederick VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862. The Schleswig-Holstein question. First war with Prussia.

"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if stress were laid on the various changes in the relations between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in 1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII. took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however, the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son, afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With this prospect before them it became very desirable for the Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing the former under its own constitution to form part of the German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing to Prussia the office of mediation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England, France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it, in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of 1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were reserved. {2834} The declaration was made in accordance with the views of Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852. … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of 1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of 1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries, and they argued that, under the engagements which had been contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in constitutional changes of this character. This argument added heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that, while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the affairs of the entire Kingdom."

S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, chapter 30 (volume 2).

In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position. "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade, retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge, in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of 340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the 6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia. "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96 officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the 25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000 men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly severe."

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapter 53.

From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

ALSO IN: C. A. Gosch, Denmark and Germany since 1815, chapters 3-9.

A Forgotten War (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 ").

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874. The Danish constitution. Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power, but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility. The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly) meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has lasted for two months at least. It consists of two Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66 members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House is elected by manhood suffrage. {2835} Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. … At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal, or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I said in the beginning that I would tell you how the constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September 23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately, the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for 1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs, but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal, quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only partially complied with, and from the first the charter met with but scanty popularity."

E. Magnusson, Denmark and Iceland (National Life and Thought, chapter 12).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855. In the alliance against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859. Accession of Charles XV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863. Accession of Christian IX.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864. Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question. Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872. Accession of Oscar II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890. Population.

By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway 2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

—————SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End————

SCANZIA, Island of.

The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some ancient writers.

See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

SCHAH, SHAH.

See BEY.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

SCHELLENBERG, or HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

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

SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690. Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

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

SCHEPENS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHILL'S RISING.

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

SCHISM, The Great.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418; also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

See ILLYRIANS.

SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

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

SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SCHŒNE, The.

An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

See PARASANG.

{2836}

SCHOFIELD, General J. M. Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

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

The Atlanta Campaign.

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

Campaign against Hood.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE), and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern Roman Empire.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 5, chapter 20.

SCHOLASTICISM. SCHOOLMEN.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his liberality; and learned men who, after following him into Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the continent; letters and schools prospered there more than anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In 780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys, those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth, Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to 796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went, and at which were regularly present all those who were with the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and satisfied, was its chief merit."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 22 (volume 3).

See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

ALSO IN: A. F. West, Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools.

SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION.

SCHÖNBRUNN, Treaty of (1806).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

Treaty of (1809).

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

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction, section 6.

"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt, and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

Van Leeuwen, Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law, quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland, volume 1, page 101, foot-note, and volume 2, page 212.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

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

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777. Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

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

SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCHWEIDNITZ: Captured and recaptured.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

SCINDE, SINDH.

"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean. It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan; the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. … Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

"In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. … The connection of the British government with Sindh had its origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a 'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the province. … In their relations with the British government the Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign interference. Several treaties were made with them from time to time. {2837} In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which, however, were not carried out because of the interposition of the British government, more intimate connection with the Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary dependence on the British government. New treaties became necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding, and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with 2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

D. Ross, The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh, pages 1-6.

ALSO IN: Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, chapter 14 (volume 2).

See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

SCIO.

See CHIOS.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR, Destruction of Carthage by.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

SCIR-GEREFA.

See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the traveller equal or greater difficulties."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 8, section 71, foot-note.

SCLAVENES. SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

See SLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

See ILLYRIANS.

SCONE, Kingdom of.

See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCORDISCANS, The.

The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114 they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the Danube.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).

SCOT AND LOT.

"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or national purposes."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil, the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line, with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the vernacular of the inhabitants."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 2, page 453.

SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster, formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history. The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704, the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century the great movement began which transported so large a portion of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.' Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period. {2838} In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before 1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony, expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by counter streams of the same race, which had entered the continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia. Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any mention of their people —names which the world will not willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall, Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks, Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims, McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers, Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors, Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South, seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk, Johnson."

W. W. Henry, The Scotch Irish of the South, (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889).

"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier for their leadership in our history; nor have we been altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the importance of the part played by that stern and virile people, the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin. These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same men who, before any others, declared for American independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an entirely different stock from that which had long existed in the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that, except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston, the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from their great breeding ground and nursery in western Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of the white advance. They were the first and last set of immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: J. Phelan, History of Tennessee, chapter 23.

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

SCOTIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

—————SCOTLAND: Start————

SCOTLAND: The name.

"The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it also appears to have borne from an early period another appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia, however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that people had established themselves as early as the beginning of the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was not till the tenth century that any part of the present country of Scotland came to be known under that name. … {2839} From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and Ireland alone;

2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania; and;

3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

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

SCOTLAND: The Picts and Scots.

"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the time, however, of British independence under Carausius and Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,' Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain, and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before, and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained, untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same) meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti probably owned these names, the former of which is to be traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a national name, which described them as painted or tattooed men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used to be known to the Kymry."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 7.

A different view of the origin and signification of these names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2, part 1, chapter 1.

Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says: "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians. Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation, or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case favours the former belief, but the weight of philological evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.

ALSO IN: W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84. Roman conquests under Agricola.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211. Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370. The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTLAND: 6th Century. The Mission of St. Columba.

See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries. Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

SCOTLAND: 7th Century. The Four Kingdoms.

"Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were now in firm possession of the districts extending along the east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea, the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief, while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and along with the Britons they were under subjection to the Angles." {2840} In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu, led an army into the country of the Picts and was there defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere. The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about forty-six years.'"

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries. The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea, while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and 'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, chapter 4.

It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was known, there was a period during which the realm established by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that 'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16 inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 9th Century. The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries. The forming of' the modern kingdom and its relations to England.

"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder, because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better than any other to express the real state of the case. The transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply an application, on an international scale, of the general principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century. The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal change which had come over all such relations everywhere. … But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events which have often been confounded with the Commendation of Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known. At the time of the Commendation the country which is now called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct sovereignties. {2841} North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose. South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh, which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year 924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland, subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the relation was something new on the part of Scotland and Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian into their relations to one another and to the English Crown were quite distinct from each other. They were as follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The distinction between the two states seems to have been quite forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral part of England, could be granted only as any other part of England could be granted, namely to be held as part of England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. … But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian, when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely English or Danish province would become the historical Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh century, became English in manners and language; they were not without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach more and more value to the English part of their dominions, and they laboured to spread its language and manners over their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus formed, politically distinct from England, and which political circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many respects, than England itself remained after the Norman Conquest."