Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 47)

W. Müller, Political History of Recent Times, section 11.

ALSO IN: A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 2, chapters 1-20.

C. A. Fyffe, History of Modern Europe, volume 2, chapter 6.

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 16 (volume 3).

TURKS: A. D. 1839. Accession of Abdul Medjid.

TURKS: A. D. 1853-1856. The Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

A. D. 1861-1876. The reign of Abd-ul-Aziz, and accession of Abd-ul-Hamid.

"Troubles broke out in the Lebanon in 1860, a French army was dispatched to restore order, and in the adjustment of rival claims an opportunity was afforded to Lord Dufferin for displaying those diplomatic talents for which he is renowned. In 1861 the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, and with him passed away the hope of regenerating Turkey. His brother and successor Abd-ul-Aziz was an ignorant bigot, whose extravagance brought his country to avowed insolvency (1875), and thus deprived her of that sympathy which is seldom given to the impecunious. The only remarkable thing he did was to travel. No Ottoman Sultan had ever before left his own dominions, except on the war path, but Abd-ul-Aziz ventured even as far as London, without, however, awakening any enthusiasm on the part of his Allies. In 1876 he was deposed, and—found dead. How he came by his death is a matter of doubt, but his end is said to have turned the brain of his successor, Murad V., a son of Abd-ul-Mejid, who after three months was removed as an imbecile, and succeeded by his brother, … Abd-ul-Hamid."

S. Lane-Poole, The Story of Turkey, chapter 17.

TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877. Union of Wallachia and Moldavia. Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reforms demanded by the Great Powers. War with Servia. Conference at Constantinople. Russian preparations for war.

"Before four years were over [after the termination of the Crimean War by the Treaty of Paris], one of the chief stipulations of the treaty was set aside. Wallachia and Moldavia, which it had been the policy of the Powers to separate, displayed a constant desire to join. Two of the great Continental Powers—France and Russia—favoured the junction. England, Austria, and Turkey, thinking that the union would ultimately lead to their independence, opposed their fusion under one prince. At last, after discussions, which at one moment seemed likely to rekindle the flames of war, an administrative union was arranged, which resulted, in due course, in the formal union of the two provinces in 1861. [In 1858, the two provinces chose the same prince, or hospodar, in the person of Prince John Couza, who took the title of Prince of Roumania. The Porte protested, but was induced, in 1861, to recognize this union of the coronets. Prince Couza aspired to absolutism, and was forced to abdicate in 1866. Then a German, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, was chosen by the two provinces to be his successor.] Thus, five years after the Peace of Paris, one of the stipulations on which England had insisted was surrendered. In 1870 the Franco-German War led to the obliteration of another of them. In November, when the armies of France were either beaten or besieged, Russia repudiated the clause of the Treaty of Paris which had limited the forces of Russia and Turkey in the Black Sea. The declaration of the Russian Government came as a painful shock to the British people. The determination of a great European state to tear up the clause of a treaty excited indignation. It was recollected, moreover, that it was for the sake of this clause that the Crimean War had been prolonged after the Vienna negotiations; and that all the blood which had been shed, and all the money which had been spent, after the spring of 1855, were wasted in its abandonment. … All that diplomacy was able to do was to lessen the shock by persuading the Russian Government to submit its proposal for the abrogation of the clause to a conference. … The conference met. … It had practically nothing to do but to record its assent to the Russian proposal. … For five years more the Eastern Question remained undisturbed. In the spring of 1875 an insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two of the northern provinces of European Turkey. The Porte failed to quench the disturbance; and, its efforts to do so increasing its pecuniary embarrassments, was forced in the autumn to repudiate the claims of its many creditors. … In the meanwhile the insurrection continued to spread, and attracted the attention of the great European Powers. {3153} At the instigation of Austria a note was drawn up [by Count Andrassy, and known, therefore, as the Andrassy Note], which was at once signed by all the European Powers except England, and which was ultimately accepted by England also, declaring that 'the promises of reform made by the Porte had not been carried into effect, and that some combined action by the Powers of Europe was necessary to insist on the fulfilment of the many engagements which Turkey had made and broken.' As the note failed to effect its object, the representatives of the Northern Powers—Germany, Austria, and Russia—met at Berlin, proposed a suspension of arms for two months, and intimated that if Turkey in the two months failed to fulfil her broken promises, 'force would be used to compel her' to do so. The British Government, unwilling to join in a threat, refused to sign this new note. The insurrection went on; Servia, sympathising with the insurgents, declared war against Turkey; Russian officers and Russian troops fought in the Servian battalions; and Russia herself, setting her legions in motion, evidently prepared for hostilities. When these events occurred, large numbers of the English people were prepared to support the Turk. Though they had been partially estranged from the cause of Turkey by the repudiation of the Ottoman debt in the previous autumn, they recollected the sacrifices of the Crimean War; they were irritated with the manner in which one part of the Treaty of Paris had been torn up in 1870; and they were consequently prepared to resist any further movement on the part of Russia. The Porte, however, dreading the extension of revolt, allowed its officers to anticipate disorder by massacre. The atrocious cruelty with which this policy was executed [especially in Bulgaria—see BALKAN and DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878] excited a general outburst of indignation in this country [England]; and the British Ministry, whose leader had hitherto displayed much sympathy with the Turks, found himself forced to observe a strict neutrality. In the short war which ensued in the autumn of 1876, the Servian troops proved no match for the Turkish battalions. At the request or command of Russia the Porte was forced to grant an armistice to the belligerents; and, on the suggestion of the British Ministry, a Conference of the Great Powers was held at Constantinople to provide for the better government of the Turkish provinces. The Constantinople Conference, held at the beginning of 1877, formed in many respects an exact parallel to the Vienna Conference held in the summer of 1855. … The Porte rejected all the proposals on which the other Powers were agreed. … In each case the failure of the Conference was followed by war. But the parallel ends at this point. … In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Turkey was left to fight her own battle alone."

S. Walpole, Foreign Relations, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: E. Ollier, Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War, volume 1, chapters 1-10.

Duke of Argyll, The Eastern Question, volume 1, chapters 3-9.

S. Menzies, Turkey Old and New, book 4. chapter 4 (volume 2).

TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878. War with Russia. Heroic defense of Plevna. Defeat and surrender.

"Russia had already massed large numbers of troops on her frontier, and Turkey was also engaged in the work of mobilization. On the 24th April the Emperor of Russia issued a manifesto to his subjects, in which he recited the interest of the empire in the Christian population of the Balkan peninsula, and the general desire that their condition should be ameliorated. He declared that all efforts at peace had been exhausted. … He had given the orders for the army to cross the frontier, and the advance upon Turkey was begun without delay. … The Turks had not been idle, though their preparations were by no means as complete as those of Russia. They had massed heavy bodies of troops along the Danube, and were prepared to resist the movements of the Russians south of that stream. … The first crossing [of the Russians] was made at Galatz, on the 22d June, by General Zimmermann, who went over with two regiments in pontoons and drove out the Turks who were posted on the heights on the opposite shore. Having obtained a footing in the Dobrudja, as the peninsula between the Danube and Black Sea is called, the Russians were able to throw bridges over the great stream, by which the whole left wing of the army moved across. Meantime the right wing, on the 26th June, sent a pontoon force over the Danube from Simnitza, under command of General Skobeleff, who drove out the small force of Turks posted there, though not without hard fighting. More pontoons followed, and then a bridge was thrown across on which the army could march. … By the first week of July the whole Russian army was safely encamped on the southern bank of the Danube, and getting in readiness to assume the offensive. … The advance did not begin in force until after the middle of the month. But before that time General Gourko … had pushed forward on the road to the Balkans, heading first for Tirnova. … On the 5th July the cavalry occupied Biela, … and on the 7th Gourko was in possession of Tirnova. … The Emperor joined the army at Biela on the 8th or 9th. Gourko was soon reported past the Balkans. … The first check of the Russians was at Plevna. They had previously captured Nicopolis with its garrison of 7,000 men, having themselves lost about 1,300 officers and men killed and wounded. Orders had been given to occupy Plevna as soon as possible, and Baron Krudener sent forward General Schilder-Schuldner to carry out the orders. … Schilder-Schuldner had 6,500 men and 46 guns in the division with which he went to capture Plevna; he was attacked by a vastly superior force of Turks before he had reached his objective point, and the first battle of Plevna was disastrous to the Russians. … Nearly 3,000 men and 74 officers were killed or wounded. … The Russians retired to Nicopolis, and the Turks set to work to strengthen Plevna. … From the 20th to the 30th of July the Russians were engaged in bringing up reinforcements and getting ready for another attack. An order came for the assault of the Turkish position; Baron Krudener did not believe the assault advisable, but the command of the Grand Duke Nicholas left him no discretion." The assault was made on the 31st of July, and was repulsed, with a loss to the Russians of 170 officers and 7,136 men. "There was nothing for the Russians to do but send for reinforcements, and wait until they arrived. The advance into Turkey had received a severe check, from which recovery was not easy. From the offensive the Russians were thrown upon the defensive, and all as the result of a single battle of six or eight hours' duration. Happily for Russia, the Turkish army had no competent leader, or the army of the Czar might have been captured or drowned in the Danube. {3154} The Turks had three armies in the field. … Mehemet Ali was at Shumla with 65,000 men; Osman Pasha at Plevna, with 50,000; and Suleiman Pasha at Yeni Zagra, with 40,000. … The order of the Czar for reinforcements was quickly issued, and resulted in the despatch of 120,000 regulars and 180,000 militia for the front. With these reinforcements went 460 pieces of artillery. … General Gourko took up his position in the Shipka Pass whence Suleiman Pasha sought in vain to dislodge him. … Towards the end of August the Russian reinforcements were assembled in such numbers that an advance could again be ventured. … The total Russian and Roumanian force for the attack of Plevna amounted to 90,000 men and 440 guns, while the Turks were estimated to have about 56,000 men—and Osman Pasha. … The attack began with a bombardment on the 6th September," which was kept up until the 11th, when the Russians again endeavored to carry the Turkish works by assault. Skobeleff, conspicuous, as he always was, in daring and in success, took one of the redoubts and held it until the next day, waiting vainly for reinforcements which were not sent. Elsewhere the assault failed. "The Russian killed and wounded were estimated at 18,000 to 20,000, and the Turkish about 5,000 less than the Russian. The capture by assault having been given up, the Russians sat down to invoke the aid of that engine, more powerful than all their batteries, the engine of starvation. … One by one the roads leading into Plevna were occupied, but it was nearly two months from the terrible battle of the 11th September before the routes for supplies and reinforcements destined for Osman Pasha could be secured. The investment was completed on the 3d November; 120,000 Russians and Roumanians were around Plevna." On the morning of December 10 the beleaguered Turks made a desperate sortie, attempting to break the line of investment, having failed in which their stout-hearted commander surrendered unconditionally. "With the fall of Plevna and the surrender of its garrison of 40,000 men, the Turkish opposition practically ceased. Within a month from that event General Gourko had captured Sophia, and General Radetsky took the village of Shipka, in the Shipka Pass, and compelled the surrender of a Turkish army of 23,000 men. … Gourko and Skobeleff advanced upon Philippopolis by different routes and narrowly missed capturing Suleiman Pasha with his entire force. Skobeleff advanced upon Adrianople, which the Turks abandoned, and Slivno and Yeni-Zagra were occupied, all inside of thirty days. Plevna had made the Russians the masters of the situation, and they advanced upon Constantinople, the Turks retiring before them, and occasionally making a feeble resistance. Turkey asked the mediation of England, and finally, despairing of her aid, signed an armistice that became the basis of the treaty of San Stefano."

T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles Since Waterloo, chapter 21.

The campaign of the Russians in Bulgaria was accompanied by another in Asiatic Turkey, where they, likewise, met with a temporary check, after pushing their first advance too confidently, and with an insufficient force. They invested Kars and advanced against Erzeroum, in May, 1877; but were defeated at Sevin and withdrew from both undertakings. Having received reinforcements, they resumed the offensive in October, attacking the main Turkish army, under Mukhtar Pasha, in its strong position at Aladsha, or on the Little Yahni and Great Yahni hills. Their first attack, on the 2d, was repulsed; they repeated it on the 15th with success, driving one wing of the enemy into Kars and forcing the other to surrender. Kars was then besieged and taken by assault November 17. The Turks suffered another defeat at Deve-Boyun, near Erzeroum, November 4, and they evacuated Erzeroum itself in February, 1878.

E. Ollier, Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War.

ALSO IN; V. Baker, The War in Bulgaria.

F. V. Greene, The Russian Army and its Campaign in Turkey.

TURKS: A. D. 1878. Excitement in England over the Russian advance. The British fleet sent through the Dardanelles. Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

"At the opening of 1878 the Turks were completely prostrate. The road to Constantinople was clear. Before the English public had time to recover their breath and to observe what was taking place, the victorious armies of Russia were almost within sight of the minarets of Stamboul. Meanwhile the English Government were taking momentous action. … Parliament was called together at least a fortnight before the time usual during recent years. The Speech from the Throne announced that her Majesty could not conceal from herself that, should the hostilities between Russia and Turkey unfortunately be prolonged, 'some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution.' This looked ominous to those who wished for peace, and it raised the spirits of the war party. There was a very large and a very noisy war party already in existence. It was particularly strong in London. It embraced some Liberals as well as nearly all Tories. It was popular in the music-halls and the public-houses of London. … The men of action got a nickname. They were dubbed the Jingo Party. … Some Tyrtæus of the tap-tub, some Körner of the music-halls, had composed a ballad which was sung at one of these caves of harmony every night amidst the tumultuous applause of excited patriots. The refrain of this war-song contained the spirit-stirring words: 'We don't want to fight, but, by Jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too.'

Some one whose pulses this lyrical outburst of national pride failed to stir called the party of its enthusiasts the Jingoes. … The name was caught up at once, and the party were universally known as the Jingoes. … The Government ordered the Mediterranean fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to Constantinople. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would ask for a supplementary estimate of six millions for naval and military purposes. Thereupon Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial Secretary, at once resigned. … Lord Derby was also anxious to resign, and indeed tendered his resignation, but he was prevailed upon to withdraw it. The fleet meanwhile was ordered back from the Dardanelles to Besika Bay. It had got as far as the opening of the Straits when it was recalled. {3155} The Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons kept on protesting against the various war measures of the Government, but with little effect. … While all this agitation in and out of Parliament was going on … the news came that the Turks, utterly broken down, had been compelled to sign an armistice, and an agreement containing a basis of peace, at Adrianople. Then, following quickly on the heels of this announcement, came a report that the Russians, notwithstanding the armistice, were pushing on towards Constantinople with the intention of occupying the Turkish capital. A cry of alarm and indignation broke out in London. One memorable night a sudden report reached the House of Commons that the Russians were actually in the suburbs of Constantinople. The House for a time almost entirely lost its head. The lobbies, the corridors, St. Stephen's Hall, the great Westminster Hall itself, and Palace Yard beyond it, became filled with wildly excited and tumultuous crowds. If the clamour of the streets at that moment had been the voice of England, nothing could have prevented a declaration of war against Russia. Happily, however, it was proved that the rumour of Russian advance was unfounded. The fleet was now sent in good earnest through the Dardanelles, and anchored a few miles below Constantinople. Russia at first protested that if the English fleet passed the Straits Russian troops ought to occupy the city. Lord Derby was firm, and terms of arrangement were found—English troops were not to be disembarked, and the Russians were not to advance. Russia was still open to negotiation. Probably Russia had no idea of taking on herself the tremendous responsibility of an occupation of Constantinople. She had entered into a treaty with Turkey, the famous Treaty of San Stefano, by which she secured for the populations of the Christian provinces almost complete independence of Turkey, and was to create a great new Bulgarian State with a seaport on the Egean Sea. The English Government refused to recognise this Treaty. Lord Derby contended that it involved an entire readjustment of the Treaty of Paris, and that that could only be done with the sanction of the Great Powers assembled in Congress. Lord Beaconsfield openly declared that the Treaty of San Stefano would put the whole south-east of Europe directly under Russian influence. Russia offered to submit the Treaty to the perusal, if we may use the expression, of a Congress; but argued that the stipulations which merely concerned Turkey and herself were for Turkey and herself to settle between them. This was obviously an untenable position. … Turkey meanwhile kept feebly moaning that she had been coerced into signing the Treaty. The Government determined to call out the Reserves, to summon a contingent of Indian troops to Europe, to occupy Cyprus, and to make an armed landing on the coast of Syria. … The last hope of the Peace Party seemed to have vanished when Lord Derby left his office [which he did on the 28th of March]. Lord Salisbury was made Foreign Minister. … Lord Salisbury's first act in the office of Foreign Secretary was to issue a circular in which he declared that it would be impossible for England to enter a Congress which was not free to consider the whole of the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano. … Prince Bismarck had often during these events shown an inclination to exhibit himself in the new attitude of a peaceful mediator. He now interposed again and issued invitations for a congress to be held in Berlin to discuss the whole contents of the Treaty of San Stefano. After some delay, discussion, and altercation, Russia agreed to accept the invitation on the conditions proposed, and it was finally resolved that a Congress should assemble in Berlin on the approaching June 13. To this Congress it was supposed by most persons that Lord Salisbury would be sent to represent England. Much to the surprise of the public, Lord Beaconsfield announced that he himself would attend, accompanied by Lord Salisbury, and conduct the negotiations in Berlin. The event was, we believe, without precedent. … The Congress was held in the Radzivill Palace, a building with a plain unpretending exterior in one of the principal streets of Berlin, and then in the occupation of Prince Bismarck. The Prince himself presided. … The Congress discussed the whole or nearly the whole of the questions opened up by the recent war. … The great object of most of the statesmen who were concerned in the preparation of the Treaty which came of the Congress, was to open for the Christian populations of the south-east of Europe a way into gradual self-development and independence. But on the other hand it must be owned that the object of some of the Powers, and especially, we are afraid, of the English Government, was rather to maintain the Ottoman Government than to care for the future of the Christian races. These two influences, acting and counteracting on each other, produced the Treaty of Berlin."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Time, chapter 65 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, Lord Beaconsfield, chapter 16.

H. D. Traill, The Marquis of Salisbury, chapter 11.

R. Wilson, Life and Times of Queen Victoria, volume 2, chapter 21.

TURKS: A. D. 1878. The Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin.

"The First Article of the Treaty of San Stefano had reference to the new boundaries to be assigned to Montenegro. The accession of territory, which was not very large, was taken from the provinces of Bosnia and Albania, and lay to the north, east, and south of the original State. … It gave to the mountaineers their much-coveted admission to the sea. It was next provided that a European Commission, on which the Sublime Porte and the Government of Montenegro were to be represented, should be charged with fixing the definite limits of the Principality. … By Article II., the Sublime Porte recognized definitively the independence of the Principality of Montenegro. … Article III. dealt with Servia, which was recognized as independent. The new frontier of this Principality was to follow the course of the Drina, the Dezevo, the Raska, the Ibar, the Morava, and some other streams, and was drawn so as to give Little Zwornik, Zakar, Leskovatz, Ak Palanka, and Nisch, to the Servians. … In Article V., the Sublime Porte undertook to recognize the independence of Roumania, which would thus acquire a right to an indemnity, to be hereafter discussed between the two countries. The most important sections of the Treaty were of course those which had relation to Bulgaria. They commenced with Article VI., which set forth that Bulgaria was constituted an autonomous, tributary Principality, with a Christian Government and a national militia. {3156} The definitive frontiers of the new Principality were to be traced by a special Russo-Turkish Commission before the evacuation of Roumelia by the Russian army. … The new Bulgaria was of very considerable dimensions. It extended from the Danube in the north to the Ægean in the south; and from the borders of Albania in the west to the Black Sea in the east. All that was left to Turkey in this part of her Empire was an irregular and somewhat narrow territory, running westward from Constantinople along the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the Ægean until it touched the limits of the new Principality, and extending no farther north than was sufficient to include Adrianople and its immediate neighbourhood. By this arrangement, the territory so left to the Sultan was completely separated from Thessaly and Albania. … According to Article VII., the Prince of Bulgaria was to be freely elected by the people, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the assent of the Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of the Great European Powers should be capable of being elected Prince of Bulgaria. … The introduction of the new system into Bulgaria, and the superintendence of its working, would be entrusted for two years to an Imperial Russian Commissioner. … By Article VIII., the Ottoman army would no longer remain in Bulgaria, and all the ancient fortresses would be razed at the expense of the local Government. … Until the complete formation of a native militia, the country would be occupied by Russian troops. … Article IX. declared that the amount of the annual tribute which Bulgaria was to pay the Suzerain Court would be determined by an agreement between Russia, the Ottoman Government, and the other Cabinets. … By Article X., the Sublime Porte was to have the right to make use of Bulgaria for the transport, by fixed routes, of its troops, munitions, and provisions, to the provinces beyond the Principality, and vice versa. … Article XII. provided that all the Danubian fortresses should be razed, and that in future there should be no strongholds on the banks of the Danube, nor any men-of-war in the waters of Roumania, Servia, or Bulgaria. … Article XIV. imposed on Turkey the obligation to introduce reforms into Bosnia and the Herzegovina." Articles XV. and XVI. stipulated reforms in government of Crete, Epirus, Thessaly, Armenia, and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. "The question of the war-indemnities was arranged in Article XIX., which set forth that the Emperor of Russia claimed, in all, 1,410,000,000 roubles for losses imposed on Russia during the contest. … The Emperor, however, did not desire to receive the whole of this indemnity in the form of money-payments, but, taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of Turkey, and acting in accordance with the wishes of the Sultan, was willing to substitute for the greater part of the sums enumerated certain territorial cessions, consisting of the Sandjak of Tultcha, on the Danube (including the Delta Islands and the Isle of Serpents), and, in Asia, Ardahan, Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory extending as far as the Soghanli Dagh. With respect to the Sandjak of Tultcha and the Delta Islands, Russia, not wishing to annex that territory, reserved to herself the right of exchanging it for the part of Bessarabia detached from her by the Treaty of 1856. … The ceded territories in Europe and Asia were to be taken as an equivalent for the sum of 1,100,000,000 roubles." The remaining Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano related to details of minor importance. "The Treaty of Berlin, signed by the Plenipotentiaries on the 13th of July, 1878, and of which the ratifications were exchanged on the 3rd of August, was the Treaty of San Stefano, with additions, subtractions, and amendments. … Speaking generally, it may be said that the objects of the Treaty of Berlin, as distinguished from its predecessor, were to place the Turkish Empire in a position of independence, and to protect the jeopardised rights of Europe. These ends it accomplished, or partially accomplished, by several important provisions. It divided the so-called Bulgaria into two provinces, of which the one to the north of the Balkans was formed into a tributary Principality, while the one to the south, which was to be designated Eastern Roumelia, was to remain under the direct authority of the Sultan, with administrative autonomy and a Christian Governor-General. It left to the Sultan the passes of the mountains, and the right of sending troops into the interior of Eastern Roumelia whenever there might be occasion. It reduced the stay of the Russian army in European Turkey. … It secured to Roumania, as compensation for the loss of that portion of Bessarabia which had been annexed to Moldavia by the Treaty of Paris (1856), a larger amount of territory, south of the Danube, than had been granted at San Stefano. It restored to Turkey the whole of the northern shores of the Ægean, a wide extent of country in Europe, and, in Asia, the valley of Alashgerd and the town of Bayazid. … It gave far ampler guarantees for religious liberty than had entered into the projects of the Czar."

E. Ollier, Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War, volume 2, chapter 9 and 21.

"In her private agreement with Russia, England had consented to the cession of Batoum, but she now sought to diminish the value of that post by stipulating that the fortifications should be demolished and the port declared free. The dispute, which at one time assumed a serious character, was finally settled by a declaration on the part of the Czar that Batoum should be a free port. Kars, Ardahan, and Batoum were ceded to Russia, the district of Khotur to Persia, and the Sultan pledged himself to carry out the requisite reforms in Armenia without loss of time, and to protect the inhabitants against the Kurds and Circassians. At the same time a secret treaty was made known which had been contracted between England and Turkey on the 4th of June. By this treaty the Porte pledged itself to carry out reforms in Asia Minor, and England, on her part, guaranteed the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic possessions. To put England in a position to fulfil her part of the treaty, and as a pledge for the execution of the promised reforms, the Porte surrendered Cyprus to England as a naval and military station, the latter agreeing to regard the island as an integral part of the Turkish empire, and to make over the surplus revenue to the Sultan. This treaty, which had received the consent of Germany and Russia at the time of its execution, aroused great indignation in France and Italy. … To pacify the former state, Beaconsfield and Salisbury entered into a secret arrangement with Waddington, in accordance with which England was to put no obstacles in the way of a French occupation of Tunis—an arrangement of which the French government finally took advantage in the year 1881. {3157} The English representatives had also entered into an arrangement with Austria in reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the sitting of June 29th Andrassy read a memorandum in which he set forth that Austria had been disturbed for a whole year by the insurrection in those provinces, and had been compelled to receive and provide for over 150,000 Bosnian fugitives, who positively refused again to submit to the hardships of Turkish misrule; that Turkey was not in a position to restore order in the disturbed districts. … Thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury moved that Austria be charged with the occupation and administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and … the congress … decided to hand over those two provinces to Austro-Hungary. … The independence of Servia and Montenegro was recognized on condition that full freedom and political equality were accorded to the members of all religions. Servia received an addition to her population of 280,000 souls, her most important acquisition being the city and fortress of Nish. She also assumed a part of the Turkish debt. The recognition of Roumanian independence was conditioned on the cession of Bessarabia to Russia, and the admission to political equality of the members of all religions—a condition which had special reference to the Jews. In compensation for Bessarabia Roumania was to receive the Dobrudsha and the islands at the mouth of the Danube. … Austria took possession of her share of the booty at once, but not without the most obstinate resistance."

W. Müller, Political History of Recent Times, section 30.

ALSO IN: Sir E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 4, Numbers 518, 524-532.

Duke of Argyll, The Eastern Question, volume 2, chapter 13.

See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878.

TURKS: A. D. 1894. Reported Atrocities in Armenia.

A disturbance of some nature—the causes and extent of which have not yet been ascertained—occurring in Turkish Armenia during the late weeks of summer or early part of autumn, gave occasion for what is claimed to have been more horrible atrocities on the part of the Turkish soldiery than were committed in Bulgaria during the year 1877. The scene of alleged massacres is in the mountainous district of Sassoun, near the western end of Lake Van, where 6,000 men, women and children are said to have been slain. The Christian world having been roused, though not very promptly, by the reports of this fresh outbreak of barbarism, the Porte has been forced by pressure from the Powers to consent to the formation of a commission to investigate the affair. England, France and Russia are to be represented on the commission.

—————TURKS: End————

TURLUPINS, The.

See BEGUINES.

TURNER, Nat, The Insurrection of.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

TURONES, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul who gave their name to Touraine, the district which they inhabited, and to Tours, the chief town of that district.

See GAULS; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

—————TUSCANY:Start————

TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115. The founding of the duchy. The reign of Countess Matilda. The rise of the free cities.

"The first Lombard duke of whom any sure record remains is a certain 'Alovisino' who flourished about the year 685; and the last, though of more doubtful existence, is 'Tachiputo,' in the 8th century, when Lucca was the principal seat of government, with the privilege of coining, although her Counts were not always Dukes and Marquises of Tuscany. About the year 800, the title of Duke seems to have changed to that of Count, and although both are afterwards used the latter is most common: Muratori says, that this dignity was in 813 enjoyed by a certain Boniface whom Sismondi believes to be the ancestor of Countess Matilda; but her father, the son of Tedaldo, belonged to another race: he was the grandson to Attone, Azzo, or Adelberto, Count of Cannosa. … The line of Boniface I. finished in 1001 by the death of Hugo the Great. … After him, on account of the civil wars between Ardoino and Henry, there was no permanent Duke until 1014, when the latter appointed Ranieri, whom Conrad the Salique deposed in 1027, making room for Boniface the father of Countess Matilda. This heroine died in 1115 after a reign of active exertion for herself and the Church against the Emperors, which generated the infant and as yet nameless factions of Guelph and Ghibeline. …

See 'War of Investitures,' PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122]

The fearless assertion of her own independence by successful struggles with the Emperor was an example not overlooked by the young Italian communities under Matilda's rule. … These seeds of liberty began first to germinate amongst the Lombard plains, but quickly spreading over the Apennines were welcomed throughout Tuscany. …

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

It seems probable that in Tuscany, towards the commencement of the 12th century, the Count's authority had passed entirely into the principal communities, leaving that of the Marquis as yet untouched; but there are reasons for believing that the Countess Matilda in some of her difficulties was induced to sell or cede a portion of her power, and probably all that of the Count's. … Altogether, there appears little reason to doubt the internal freedom of most Tuscan cities very early in the 11th century."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. Villari, The Two First Centuries of Florentine History, volume I, chapter 2.

TUSCANY: A. D. 925-1020. The rise of Pisa.

See PISA.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1063-1200. Cultivation of architecture at Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1077-1115. Countess Matilda and her Donation to the Holy See.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1215. Beginning of the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1248-1278. The Guelf and Ghibelline wars.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1250-1293. Development of the popular constitution of the Florentine Commonwealth.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1282-1293. War between Pisa and Genoa. Battle of Meloria. War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

{3158}

TUSCANY: A. D. 1300-1313. The new factions of Florence. Bianchi and Neri.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1310-1313. The visitation of the Emperor, Henry VII. His war with the Guelfic cities.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1313-1328. The wars of Florence and Pisa. The subjection of Lucca to Castruccio Castracani and his war with the Florentines. The hostile visitation of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

TUSCANY: A. D 1336-1338. War of Florence with Mastino della Scala, of Verona.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1341-1343. Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans before Lucca. Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1353-1359. Sufferings and deliverance from "the Great Company."

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1378-1427. The democratizing of Florence. The Tumult of the Ciompi. First appearances of the Medici.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1390-1402. Resistance of Florence to the conquests of the Duke of Milan.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1433-1464. The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1452-1454. War of Florence and Milan against Venice, Naples, Siena and other states.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1469-1492. The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1494-1509. The French deliverance of Pisa. The long struggle and reconquest by Florence.

See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1502-1569. Restoration of the Medici in Florence and their creation of the grand duchy of Tuscany.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1725. Reversion of the grand duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1735. Reversion of the duchy secured to the ex-Duke of Lorraine.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735; and ITALY: A. D.1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1796. Seizure of Leghorn by the French.

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

TUSCANY: A. D. 1801. The grand duchy transformed into the Kingdom of Etruria and given to the son of the Duke of Parma.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1807. End of the Kingdom of Etruria. Cession and annexation to France.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1814-1815. Restored to Ferdinand III.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1848-1849. Revolution. Expulsion of the Grand Duke. Proclamation of a Republic and union with Rome. The old order restored.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1859-1861. Flight of the Grand Duke. Formation of a provisional government. Annexation to Sardinia. Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

—————TUSCANY: End————

TUSCARORAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

TUSCULAN VILLAS.

"In Cicero's time the number of country-houses which a wealthy Roman considered it necessary to possess had evidently become considerable, and the amount spent upon them very great. The orator himself had villas at Tusculum, Antium, Formiæ, Bairn, and Pompeii, besides his town-house on the Palatine, and his family seat at Arpinum. … The Tusculanum of Cicero had formerly been in the possession of Sylla. … Close to the Villa of Cicero, and so near that he could go across to fetch books from the library, was the Villa of Lucullus. … Many other Roman villas, lay on the Tusculan hills."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 14, part 3.

TUSCULUM.

"In the times of the Latin League, from the fall of Alba to the battle of Lake Regillus, Tusculum was the most prominent town in Latium. It suffered, like the other towns in Latium, a complete eclipse during the later Republic and the Imperial times; but in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, under the Counts of Tusculum, it became again a place of great importance and power, no less than seven popes of the house of Tusculum having sat in the chair of St. Peter." The ruins of Tusculum, about fifteen miles from Rome, on the Alban hills, have been considerably explored.

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 14, part 2.

See, also, ALBA.

TUTELOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TUTTLINGEN, DÜTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

TWEED RING, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TWELVE APOSTLES OF IRELAND.

See CLONARD, MONASTERY OF.

TWELVE CÆSARS, The.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

The Twelve Peers of France were the nobles and prelates "who held the great fiefs immediately from the Crown. … Their number had been fixed by Louis VII. at twelve; six lay and six ecclesiastical. They were the Dukes of Normandy, Burgundy, Guienne, the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, Toulouse; the Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Châlons, Beauvais and Langres. … The immediate vassals of the Duchy of France, who held of the King as Duke, not as King, were not Peers of France."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 6, with foot-note.

TWELVE TABLES OF THE LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TWENTY-SECOND PRAIRIAL, Law of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

TWIGGS, General, Treacherous surrender of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TWIGHTWEES, OR MIAMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, also ILLINOIS AND MIAMIS, and SACS, ETC.

TWILLER, Wouter Van, The governorship of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

{3159}

TWO SICILIES, The Kingdom of the.

The kingdom founded in Southern Italy and Sicily by the Norman conquest in the 11th century (see ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194) maintained its existence until recent times, sometimes as a unit, and sometimes divided into the two dominions, insular and peninsular, of Sicily and Apulia, or Naples. The division occurred first after the rising against the French and the massacre known as "the Sicilian Vespers".

See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

The crown of Sicily was then acquired by Peter, king of Aragon, succeeded by his son Frederick. Charles of Anjou and his successors were left in possession of the kingdom of Naples, alone, although still claiming Sicily in union with it. "As the king who reigned at Naples would not give up his right to Sicily, … his kingdom is often called Sicily as well as the Island Kingdom; and so when at last the two kingdoms became one [again-see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447], the strange name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies arose."

W. Hunt, History of Italy, page 93.

See, also, NAPLES, and SICILY.

TYCHE.

One of the variously named parts of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily. Its position was northwest of Achradina.

TYCOON, SHOGUN.

See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

TYLER. John: Vice-Presidential election. Succession to the Presidency. Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840, to 1845.

TYLER, Wat, The Rebellion of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

TYLIS, Celtic Empire of.

"The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts, not long after the death of Alexander [the Great], and nearly at the same time with their permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had founded in the Moeso-Thracian territory, destroyed the seed of Greek civilisation within its sphere, and itself succumbed during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the Thracians, who extirpated these intruders to the last man."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

TYNDARIS, Naval battle at (B. C. 257).

See PUNIC WARS: THE FIRST.

TYNWALD, Court of.

See MANX KINGDOM; and, also, THING.

TYRANTS, Greek.

"A 'tyranny,' in the Greek sense of the word, was the irresponsible dominion of a single person, not founded on hereditary right, like the monarchies of the heroic ages and of many barbarian nations, nor on a free election, like that of a dictator or æsymnete, but on force. It did not change its character when transmitted through several generations, nor was any other name invented to describe it when power, which had been acquired by violence, was used for the public good; though Aristotle makes it an element in the definition of tyranny, that it is exercised for selfish ends. But, according to the ordinary Greek notions, and the usage of the Greek historians, a mild and beneficent tyranny is an expression which involves no contradiction."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.

"In spite of the worst which has been said against them, the tyrants hold a legitimate place in the progress of Greek constitutional history. They were the means of breaking down the oligarchies in the interests of the people. … It was at Sicyon that the first tyrannis arose. … About the year 670 B. C. a certain Orthagoras, who is said to have been a cook, succeeded in establishing himself as tyrant in Sicyon. Of his reign no incident is recorded. He was succeeded by his son Myron."

E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: J. P. Mahaffy, Problems in Greek History, chapter 4.

See, also, DESPOTS.

TYRAS, The.

The ancient name of the river Dniester.

TYRCONNEL'S DOMINATION IN IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

—————TYRE: Start————

TYRE.

"Justin represents Tyre as having been founded a year before the Capture of Troy, thus apparently reducing by about 1,500 years the date assigned to it by the priests of the temple of Hercules. … Josephus places the settlement of Tyre 240 years before the building of Solomon's Temple. He refers no doubt to the same event as Justin, the occupation of the island by the Sidonians, as he cannot have been ignorant of the mention of Tyre in the Old Testament more than 240 years before Solomon. The date of the building of Solomon's Temple is itself disputed, estimates varying from 1012 B. C. to 969 B. C. … Tyre consisted of two parts, an island about three-quarters of a mile in length, separated from the mainland by a strait four stadia, about half a mile, in width at its northern end, and a town on the shore. The latter was distinguished as Palæ-Tyrus, or Ancient Tyre, and was the chief seat of the population, till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phœnicia. It extended along the shore from the river Leontes in the north to the fountain of Rusel-Ain in the south, a distance of seven miles, great part of which would be suburb rather than city. Pliny, who wrote when its boundaries could still be traced, computes the circuit of Palæ-Tyrus and the island together at nineteen Roman miles, that of the island town being 22 stadia. … Though called Old Tyre, because it lay in ruins, when the younger city on the island was in the height of its prosperity, it was from the first connected with it; and the name of Tyre (Tsour), 'a rock,' would hardly be appropriate, except to the island. … It is probable that, from the first, the island, from the excellence of its natural harbour, was a naval station to the city on the mainland, and, as a place of security, the seat of the worship of the national deities, Astarte, Belus, Hercules. … The situation of Palæ-Tyrus was one of the most fertile spots on the coast of Phœnicia. The plain is here about five miles wide, the soil is dark, and the variety of its productions excited the wonder of the Crusaders. Near the southern extremity of the city was a fountain, which, communicating with some natural receptacle in the mountains above, poured forth copious and perennial streams of pure and cool water. An aqueduct distributed them through the town. … Whatever may have been the relative importance of Palæ-Tyrus and the island, previous to the great migration from Sidon, occasioned by the victory of the Ascalonites, there can be no doubt that from this time the population of the island greatly increased. The colonization of Gades took place about a century later. But we have no connected history of Tyre till near the age of Solomon."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia: History, chapter 1.

See, also, PHŒNICIANS.

TYRE: The founding of the colony of Carthage.

See CARTHAGE: THE FOUNDING OF.

TYRE: B. C. 598-585. Siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

See PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.

{3160}

TYRE: B. C. 332. Siege and capture by Alexander the Great.

After defeating the Persians at Issus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330), Alexander turned his attention to the tributary Phœnician cities, whose fleets gave to the Great King a naval power more formidable than the hosts of the nations which marched at his command. Sidon, Byblus, and other towns submitted promptly to the conqueror. Tyre offered a qualified surrender, which did not satisfy the haughty Macedonian, and he instantly laid siege to the city. Having no adequate fleet with which to reach the island-town, he resolved to carry a causeway across the channel which separated the island from Old Tyre, on the mainland, and he demolished the buildings of the latter to provide materials for the work. It was an undertaking of immense magnitude and difficulty, and the ingenious Tyrians found many modes of interfering with it. They succeeded in destroying the mole when half of it had been built; but Alexander, with obstinate perseverance, began his work anew, on a larger scale than before. He also collected a strong fleet of war-galleys, from Cyprus and from the Phœnicians who had submitted to him, with which the opposition of the enemy was checked and his own operations advanced. After seven months of prodigious labor and incessant battle, the strong walls of Tyre were beaten down and the city taken. "It soon became a scene of unresisted carnage and plunder. The Macedonians, exasperated by the length and labours of the siege, which had lasted seven months, and by the execution of their comrades [Greek prisoners, whom the Tyrians had put to death on the walls, before the eyes of the besiegers, and cast into the sea], spared none that fell into their hands. The king—whom the Greeks call Azelmicus—with the principal inhabitants, and some Carthaginian envoys who had been sent with the usual offerings to Melkart, took refuge in his sanctuary: and these alone, according to Arrian, were exempted from the common lot of death or slavery. It was an act of clemency, by which the conqueror at the same time displayed his piety to the god. Of the rest, 8,000 perished in the first slaughter, and 30,000, including a number of foreign residents, were sold as slaves. But if we may believe Curtius, 15,000 were rescued by the Sidonians [of Alexander's navy], who first hid them in their galleys, and afterwards transported them to Sidon—not, it must be presumed, without Alexander's connivance or consent. It sounds incredible, that he should have ordered 2,000 of the prisoners to be crucified. … Tyre was still occupied as a fortress, and soon recovered some measure of her ancient prosperity."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 50.

ALSO IN: Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, book 2, chapters 15-24.

TYRE: B. C. 332-A. D. 638. Under Greek and Roman domination.

"The Carians, with whom Alexander repeopled the city [of Tyre] fell into the habits of the former population, and both Tyre and Sidon recovered much of their commercial greatness. After a long struggle be·tween the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria, Phœnicia was finally secured to the latter by Antiochus the Great (B. C. 198). But the commercial rivalry of Egypt proved more serious even than political subjection; and the foundation of Berenice on the Red Sea diverted to Alexander much of the oriental commerce that had previously flowed through Tyre and Sidon. But still they did not succumb to their younger rival. Under the Romans, to whom Phœicia was subjected with Syria [by Pompeius the Great, B. C. 64], Tyre was still the first commercial city of the world."

P. Smith, History of the World: Ancient, chapter 24.

TYRE: A. D. 638. Capture by the Moslems.

After the taking of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar, the Moslems made themselves masters of the remainder of Palestine very quickly. Tripoli was first won by treachery, and then the same traitor who had delivered it, making his way to Tyre, succeeded in bringing about the betrayal of that place. Many of the inhabitants were put to the sword; but many others are said to have saved their lives by accepting the religion of the victors. The fall of Tyre was followed by the flight from Cæsarea of Constantine, son of the Emperor Heraclius, who commanded in Syria, and the entire abandonment of that rich province to the Moslems.

S. Ockley, History of the Saracens, pages 251-253 (Bohn ed.).

TYRE: A. D. 1124. Siege and Conquest by the Venetians and Crusaders.

The Venetians took little or no part in the First Crusade, being largely engaged in commerce with the Saracens. But in 1124—a full quarter of a century after the taking of Jerusalem—they found it wise to obtain an interest in the Christian conquests that were spreading along the Levantine coasts. They accordingly sent their doge, with a formidable fleet, to offer aid to the Latin king of Jerusalem—then Baldwin II.—for the reduction of either Ascalon or Tyre, both of which cities were still held by the Moslems. Finding it difficult to make choice between the two places, a solemn drawing of lots took place, at the altar of the Holy Sepulchre, as a means of ascertaining the will of God. The lot decided that Tyre should be attacked, and operations were accordingly begun. But "the Venetians, more devoted to the interests of their commerce and of their nation than to those of a Christian kingdom, demanded, before beginning the siege of Tyre, that they should enjoy a church, a street, a common oven, and a national tribunal in every city in Palestine. They further demanded other privileges and the possession of a third of the conquered city." The demands of the Venetians were complied with, and Tyre, after a siege of over five months, beleaguered by land and sea, was taken. The capitulation was an honorable one and honorably respected. The Moslem inhabitants were permitted to leave the city; the Christians entered it triumphally, and the day on which the news reached Jerusalem was made a festival.

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 5.

—————TYRE: End————

TYROL: Origin of the county and its name.

"Tyrol freed herself from the suzerainty of Bavaria in very early times. She was divided among a number of princes, lay and ecclesiastical. The principal of these were the counts of the Adige or of the Tyrol, and the counts of Andechs, who obtained the title of duke from Frederick I. [1152-1190], and called themselves dukes of Meran. Their race came to an end in 1248, and their domains were united to those of the counts of Tyrol who thus be·came possessed of the larger part of the lands between the Inn and the Adige. Tyrol takes its name from the castle of Tirol, which was built on the site of the Roman station Teriolis, not far from Meran, on the upper waters of the Adige."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 144, footnote.

{3161}

"After the dissolution of the classic Roman Empire, the Province of Rætia split up into parcels. … It is impossible, in a sketch like this, to follow the various dynastic and other changes, most of them extremely perplexed and obscure, which ensued between the 5th and 10th centuries. At the end of this period, the main constituents of the old province had assumed something like the shape which they now bear. That is to say, Rætia Secunda was separated from Rætia Prima, which had also lost what formerly belonged to it south of the Alpine ridge. … Tirol again had been detached from Rætia Prima, and had begun to form a separate entity. Meanwhile a power of first rate importance in the future history of Graubünden [the Grisons] had arisen: namely the Bishopric of Chur. … The Bishops of Chur took rank as feudal lords of the first class. … Originally an insignificant house, exercising … the functions of Bailies to the See of Chur, the Counts of Tirol acquired influence and territory under the shadow of distant ecclesiastical superiors."

J. A. Symonds, History of Graubünden (In Strickland's "The Engadine"), pages 23-27.

TYROL: A. D. 1363. Acquired by the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

TYROL: A. D. 1805. Taken from Austria and annexed to Bavaria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

TYROL: A. D. 1809. Heroic rising under Hofer, against the Bavarians and the French. The crushing of the revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

TYROL: A. D. 1814-1815. Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE); and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

—————TYROL: End————

TYRONE'S REBELLIONS. The Wars of the O'Neils.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

TYRRHENIANS. TYRRHENIAN SEA.

The ancient race of people in western Italy whom the Romans called Etrusci, and who called themselves the Rasenna, were known to the Greeks as the Turrhenoi, or Tyrrhenians. They were an enterprising maritime people, and hence the Greeks called that part of the Mediterranean which washes the western Italian coast the Tyrrhenian Sea.

See ETRUSCANS.

TZAR, CZAR.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.

TZOMBOR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

U.

U. C., A. U. C., A. U.

Anno Urbis Conditæ: the "Year of Rome," reckoned from the founding of the city.

See ROME: B. C. 753.

U. E. LOYALISTS.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UAUPE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

UBERTI FAMILY, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

UCHEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: UCHEAN FAMILY.

UCLES, Battle of (1108).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

UDAIPORE, OODEYPOOR.

See RAJPOOTS.

UDHA-NALA, Battle of (1763).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

UGANDA.

"It was in 1858 that the travellers Burton and Speke, starting from Zanzibar, first made Europe acquainted with the existence of that vast inland sea, the Victoria Lake, of which Rebmann and Ernhardt had already heard native reports. Four years later Speke and Grant, passing round the western shore, reached Uganda; and they found here, if I may employ the paradox, a singular, barbaric civilisation. Combined with the most barbarous usages and the grossest superstition were many of those advances in the scale of humanity which we are wont to accept as indications of civilisation. There was an appeal to law, and cases were decided after a formal hearing. The administration was vested in the king,—an absolute despot, —and from him downwards there existed a regular chain of delegated power and control. Well-made roads, kept constantly in repair, intersected the country in all directions. Rough bridges were constructed across river swamps. An army was maintained, and also a fleet of canoes on the waters of the lake. The arts of building, smith-work, &c., were very far in advance of anything to be found between Uganda and the coast. The ideas of decency, the use of clothing, and the planting of trees, were indications of long years of development, of which the intricate customs and etiquettes surrounding the Court were an additional proof. Speke traces the earliest developments of this civilisation to Unyoro and its shepherd kings, descendants of a nomadic, pastoral race—the Wahuma—whom he supposes to be an offshoot from the Abyssinians or Gallas. Uganda and the countries lying along the lake shore, being the richest province of this Wahuma empire—called Kitara—had to bring large quantities of produce to Unyoro for the king's use, and their inhabitants were looked on as slaves. The legend relates that a hunter named Uganda headed a revolt, and was proclaimed king under the name of Kimera. Mtesa was the seventh of the dynasty, according to Speke, which shows it to be of some little antiquity. Speke was enthusiastic about the fertility of Uganda, and the development of its people as compared with the savage tribes of Africa. The next European to visit the country was Colonel Chaillé Long, who was sent by Gordon in the summer of 1874. Stanley followed in 1875, and simultaneously Linant arrived in the country. In 1876 Gordon sent Emin with a party of soldiers to Mtesa's capital. They were for some time quartered there, and Gordon had views of annexing Uganda to the Egyptian Sudan. … Stanley was even louder in his praises of Uganda than Speke had been, and described it as the 'Pearl of Africa.' In consequence of his appeal on behalf of the people, a fund was started, and missionaries were despatched to Uganda. These arrived in June 1877. … Some two years later—February 1879—the French (Roman Catholic) Algerian Mission despatched a party of 'White Fathers' to begin mission-work in Uganda. {3162} The religious differences between these two conflicting creeds, which marked the very inauguration of the Roman Catholic mission, much puzzled and confused Mtesa, since both alike called themselves 'Christians.' The Arabs from the coast had already settled in Uganda, and brought with them the religion of Islam. … Mtesa showed great toleration to all creeds, though at one time he had leaned to Mohammedanism, and had ordered all Uganda to embrace that creed. Shortly after, however, as the followers of Islam refused to eat the king's meat because it was not killed in the orthodox way according to the Koran, he ordered the massacre of all Mohammedans. Mtesa died in the autumn of 1884, and Mwanga, then about eighteen years old, succeeded him—being selected from among Mtesa's sons on account of his personal likeness to the late king, since in Uganda paternity is often difficult to prove. At this time the three religions had made great progress, and their disintegrating influences on the old customs began to be more and more apparent. This was especially the case with regard to the Christians, who no longer regarded the king as divine, nor his acts, however gross and cruel, as having a divine sanction. They owned a Higher allegiance, though they remained obedient subjects, and distinguished themselves by bravery in war. Such an attitude was, of course, intolerable to a cruel despot like Mwanga. … There was still a further reason for suspicion and fear of the white men. … The Egyptian flag had been hoisted at Mruli and Fauvera in Unyoro, only just beyond the borders of Uganda, and Gordon's envoys—Colonel Long and Emin—and his troops had penetrated to Mtesa's capital. The Arabs also told of the doings of the Belgians on the Congo. At a later period reports reached Mwanga of German annexations in Usagara on the East Coast. Last, and most disturbing of all, was the news of Mr. Thomson's arrival near Usoga in the East—the route from the coast by which native tradition said that the conquerors of Uganda would come. Mwanga had succeeded his father in November 1884. Early in 1885 he determined to stamp out those dangerous religions, Mohammedan and Christian alike, which were disintegrating his country. The missionaries Mackay and Ashe, were seized, and their followers persecuted. But the religion spread the more. A plot to depose Mwanga was discovered and crushed. With varying fortunes—sometimes treated leniently, sometimes the victims of violent persecution—the missionaries held their own till the autumn of 1885. Then came news of Bishop Hannington's approach." Unhappily the Bishop came by the forbidden Usoga route, and Mwanga ordered that he be killed, with all his men, which was done in October, 1885. "After this the position of the Europeans was very precarious, but not till the following May (1886) did the storm burst. Mwanga then threw aside all restraint, and butchered the Christian converts wholesale. … But in spite of the martyrdom by torture and burning, the religion grew. … The heroism inspired by religion in the early history of our own Church was repeated here in the heart of Africa." At length, in 1888, there was a revolt, in which Christians and Mohammedans seem to have combined, and Mwanga fled to an island at the south of the Lake. His brother Kiwewa was made king, and for a time, the Christians were in control of affairs. But the Mohammedans grew jealous, and by a sudden rising drove the Christians out. Kiwewa refusing to accept the creed of Islam, was deposed, and another brother, Karema, was raised to the throne. The exiled Christians now made overtures to Mwanga, and an alliance was concluded, which resulted in the overthrow of the Mohammedan or Arab party, and the restoration of Mwanga to the throne, in October, 1889. The two Christian factions, Catholic and Protestant, or French and English, divided the country and all the offices of government between them, but were bitterly jealous of each other and perpetually quarreled, while the defeated Mohammedans were still strong and unsubdued. Affairs were in this state when Dr. Peters, the explorer in command of the German "Emin Relief Expedition," came to Uganda, having learned of the rescue of Emin Pasha by Stanley. Dr. Peters, with the aid of the French party, succeeded in arranging some kind of treaty with Mwanga, and this alarmed the Imperial British East Africa Company (see AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) when news of it had been received. That alarm was soon increased by intelligence that Emin Pasha had entered the German service and was about to conduct a strong expedition to the south of Lake Victoria Nyanza. These and other circumstances led to the despatching of Captain Lugard with a small force to Uganda to represent the British East Africa Company and establish its influence there. Captain Lugard arrived at Mengo, the capital of Uganda, on the 18th of December, 1890. Meantime Great Britain and Germany, by the Anglo-German Agreement of July 1, 1890 (see AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) had settled all questions between them as to their respective "spheres of influence," and Uganda had been definitely placed within the British "sphere." This enabled Captain Lugard to secure the signing of a treaty which recognized the suzerainty of the Company, established its protectorate over Uganda, and conceded to it many important commercial and political powers. He remained in the country until June, 1892, during which time he was driven to take part in a furious war that broke out between the Catholic and Protestant parties. The war ended in a partition of territory between the factions, and three small provinces were, at the same time, assigned to the Mohammedans. After maintaining Captain Lugard and his force in the country for eighteen months, the Company found the cost so heavy and the prospect of returns so distant, that it came to a resolution to withdraw; but was induced by a subscription of £16,000 from the Church Missionary Society to remain for another year in the exercise of the control which it had acquired. At the end of 1892 the Company renewed its resolution to evacuate the region west of Lake Victoria, and the British Government was urgently pressed to take upon itself the administration of the country. It was only persuaded, however, to assume the cost of a further occupation of Uganda for three months by the Company's officers, in order to give more time for ensuring the safety of missionaries and other Europeans. It consented, moreover, to despatch a Commissioner to investigate the situation and report upon it. The official selected for that duty was Sir Gerald Porter, Consul-General at Zanzibar. {3163} Sir Gerald returned to England with his report in December, 1893, and died of typhoid fever in the month following. His report urged the maintenance of an effective control over the government of Uganda, to be exercised directly by the British Government, in the form of a Protectorate, keeping the king on his throne, with a Commissioner at his side to direct his action in all important particulars. After much discussion, the decision of the Government was announced at the beginning of June, 1894. It determined to establish the proposed Protectorate in Uganda, not extending to Unyoro, and to place a Sub-Commissioner on duty between Lake Victoria and the sea, for the purpose of watching over communications, and apparently without political powers. The Government declined to undertake the building of the railway from Mombassa on the coast to the Lake, for which the Imperial British East Africa Company had made surveys.

Captain F. D. Lugard, The Rise of our East African Empire.

ALSO IN: Sir Gerald Porter, The British Mission to Uganda in 1893.

P. L. McDermott, British East Africa, or Ibea. The Spectator, June 9, 1894.

See, also, AFRICAN EXPLORATION, &c., in Supplement.

UGRI.

See HUNGARIANS.

UGRO-FINNISH RACES.

See TURANIAN.

UHILCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

UIRINA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

UKASE.

An edict of the Russian government, deriving the force of law from the absolute authority of the Czar.

UKRAINE, The.

See RUSSIA, GREAT, &c.; also COSSACKS.

ULADISLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1083-1102.

Uladislaus II., King of Bohemia, 1471-1516.

Uladislaus II., Duke of Poland, 1138-1146.

Uladislaus III., Duke of Poland, 1296-1333.

Uladislaus IV. (Jagellon), King of Bohemia, 1471-1516; V. of Hungary, 1490-1516.

Uladislaus V. (Jagellon), King of Poland and Duke of Lithuania, 1385-1434.

Uladislaus VI., King of Poland, 1434-1444.

Uladislaus VII., King of Poland, 1632-1648.

ULCA, Battle of the (A. D. 488).

See Rom:: A. D. 488-526.

ULEMA.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

—————ULM: Start————

ULM: A. D. 1620. Treaty of the Evangelical Union with the Catholic League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

ULM: A. D. 1702-1704. Taken by the Bavarians and French, and recovered by Marlborough.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1704.

ULM: A. D. 1805. Mack's capitulation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

—————ULM: End————

ULMENES.

See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

ULSTER, The Plantation of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.

ULTIMA THULE.

See THULE.

ULTRA VIRES.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1846.

ULTRAMONTANE. ULTRAMONTANISM.

The term ultramontane (beyond the mountain) has been used for so long a time in France and Germany to indicate the extreme doctrines of Papal supremacy maintained beyond the Alps—that is, in Italy, and especially at Rome—that it has come to have no other meaning. The ultramontanists in each country are those who make themselves partisans of these doctrines, in opposition to the more independent division of the Roman Catholic Church.

UMBRIANS, The.

"The Umbrians at one time possessed dominion over great part of central Italy. Inscriptions in their language also remain, and manifestly show that they spoke a tongue not alien to the Latin. The irruption of the Sabellian and of the Etruscan nations was probably the cause which broke the power of the Umbrians, and drove them back to a scanty territory between the Æsis, the Rubicon, and the Tiber."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, introduction, section 2.

See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

UNALACHTIGOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

UNAMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

UNCIA, The.

See As; also, FOOT, THE ROMAN.

UNCTION.

See CORONATION.

UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1860.

UNELLI, The.

The Unelli were one of the Armorican tribes of ancient Gaul. Their country was "the Cotantin of the ante-revolutionary period, the present department of Manche."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6.

UNIFORMITY, Acts of.

Two Acts of Uniformity were passed by the English Parliament in the reign of Edward VI. (1548 and 1552), both of which were repealed under Mary. In 1559, the second year of Elizabeth, a more thorough-going law of the same nature was enacted, by the provisions of which, " (1) the revised Book of Common Prayer as established by Edward VI. in 1552, was, with a few alterations and additions, revised and confirmed. (2) Any parson, vicar, or other minister, whether beneficed or not, wilfully using any but the established liturgy, was to suffer, for the first offence, six months' imprisonment, and, if beneficed, forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year; for the second offence, a year's imprisonment; for the third, imprisonment for life. (3) All persons absenting themselves, without lawful or reasonable excuse, from the service at their parish church on Sundays and holydays, were to be punished by ecclesiastical censures and a fine of one shilling for the use of the poor."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 12.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.

In 1662 soon after the Restoration, another Act of Uniformity was passed, the immediate effect of which was to eject about 2,000 ministers from the established Church.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

UNIGENITUS, The Bull.

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

UNION, The German Protestant (17th Century).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

UNION JACK.

The national flag of Great Britain and Ireland, uniting the red cross of St. George and the diagonal crosses of St. Andrew and St. Patrick, on a blue ground.

{3164}

UNION LEAGUE, The.

A secret political society formed in the United States soon after the outbreak of the American Civil War, having for its object a closer and more effective organization of the supporters of the national government. It was very large in numbers for a time, but declined as the need of such an organization disappeared.

UNION OF BRUSSELS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UNION OF CALMAR, The.

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

UNION OF HEILBRONN, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

UNION OF UTRECHT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UNITARIANISM.

"In its restricted sense Unitarianism means belief in the personal unity of God instead of in a community of divine persons. … Among the articles of Unitarian faith so understood, besides the doctrine of one supreme divine person, may be enumerated belief in human nature, in moral freedom, in human reason, in character as of more worth than ritual or creed, in the equal justice not to say mercy of God, in the unreality of a devil, not to say of evil, and in the ultimate salvation, or evolution into something better, of all souls. Without being in any sense the first article of the faith, either in the historical order as having been the starting-point, or in the logical order as underlying the whole system, or in the order of importance as being with us the doctrine of doctrines, it has happened in spite of a thousand protests that belief in God's personal unity has given its name to the entire confession. The movement first called Socinian, then Arminian, and finally Unitarian, began as a protest of the 'natural man' against two particularly hateful doctrines of Calvinism, that of total depravity and that of predestination."

S. C. Beach, Unitarianism and the Reformation (Unitarianism: its Origin and History).

"The establishment of distinct Unitarian churches in England dates back to 1774, when Theophilus Lindsey left the Church of England and went up to London to start the first avowedly Unitarian place of worship in the country. But that was not the beginning of Unitarianism. Centuries before this, Unitarianism began in England as an individual opinion, had first its martyr-age, then a period when it was a great ferment of controversy, and finally the distinct development of it which stands today in our English Unitarian body. The names of some of the Unitarian martyrs on the continent of Europe are comparatively well known,—Servetus, burned by Calvin; Valentine Gentilis the Italian; and other isolated students here and there, who had been stirred up by the Reformation spirit to read the Bible for themselves, and who could not stop where Luther and Calvin stopped. … What is called the 'era of toleration' began immediately after the overthrow of the Stuarts in 1688. The sects were now at liberty to go quietly on in their own way. On the one hand there was the great established Episcopal Church,—at a pretty low ebb in religious life, for its most earnest life had gone out of it on that 'black Bartholomew's Day, 1662,' when the two thousand Puritan clergy were ejected.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

On the other hand were these Puritans,—'Dissenters' they began now to be called,—divided into three great sects, Baptists, Independents, and English Presbyterians. Now, these were all free. They could build churches, and they did. From 1693 to 1720 was the great 'chapel'-building time. … But now, in this great development of chapel-building by these three denominations, a curious thing took place, which unexpectedly affected their after history. That curious thing was, that while the Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists) tied down all these new chapels to perpetual orthodox uses by rigid doctrinal trust-deeds, … the English Presbyterians left theirs free. It seems strange that they should do so; for the Presbyterians had begun by being the narrowest sect of the Puritans, and the Scotch Presbyterians always remained so. But the English Presbyterians had very little to do with the Scotch ones, and through all the changes and sufferings they had had to go through they had become broadened; and so it carne to pass that now, when they were building their churches or chapels up and down the country, they left them free. … The English Presbyterians, thus left free, began to grow more liberal. … A general reverence for Christ took the place of the old distinct belief in his deity. … They opened the communion to all; they no longer insisted on the old professions of 'church-membership,' but counted all who worshipped with them 'the church.' Thus things were going on all through the middle of the last century. Of course it was not the same everywhere; some still held the old views. … One man among them, … Dr. Joseph Priestley, … was one of the leading scientists of his time,—a restless investigator, and at the same time an earnest religious thinker and student, just as eager to make out the truth about religion as to investigate the properties of oxygen or electricity. So he investigated Christianity, studied the creeds of the churches, came to the conclusion that they were a long way from the Christianity of Christ, and gradually came to be a thoroughgoing Unitarian. When he came to this conclusion he did not hide it; he proclaimed it and preached it. … The upshot of it was, that at length he aroused a large part of the body to the consciousness that they were really Unitarians. They still did not take the name; they disliked sect-names altogether. … And so, though they mostly continued to call themselves English Presbyterians, or simply Presbyterians, all the world began to call them Unitarians; and more and more the Baptists and Independents, or Congregationalists, who had formerly fellowshipped and worked with them, drew apart, and left them, as they are to-day, in the reluctant isolation of a separate Unitarian body. Two other movements of thought of a somewhat similar kind increased and strengthened this development of a separate Unitarian body,—one among the General Baptists, the other in the great Episcopal Church itself."

B. Herford, Unitarianism in England (Unitarianism: its Origin and History).

{3165}

"It is hard to trace the early history of Unitarianism in New England. The name was seldom used, yet not omitted with any view to concealment; for we have abundant proof that the ministers to whom it belonged preached what they believed clearly and fully. … But a marvellous change had taken place in the last century, at the beginning of which the denial of the Trinity would have seemed no better than blasphemy; while at its close nearly all the clergy of Boston and its vicinity and many others in Massachusetts were known to dissent from the ancestral creed, to have ceased to use Trinitarian doxologies, and to preach what was then known as Arianism, regarding Jesus Christ as the greatest and oldest of created beings, but in no proper sense as God. At the same time, so little stress was laid on the Trinity by its professed believers that, with two or three exceptions, these Arians remained in full church fellowship with those of the orthodox faith. In the territory now within the limits of Boston there were, a century ago, but two professedly Trinitarian ministers, one of them being Dr. Thacher, of the liberal Brattle Square Church, while Dr. Eckley, of the Old South Church, was known to entertain doubts as to the deity of Christ."

A. P. Peabody, Early New England Unitarians (Unitarianism: its Origin and History).

UNITED BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and 1621-1648; also MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UNITED IRISHMEN, The Society of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN, Formation of the.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, Creation of the.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

UNITED NETHERLANDS, or United Provinces, or United States of the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, 1581-1584, 1584-1585, and after.

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

—————UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start————

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1620. Discovery and exploration of the Atlantic coast.

See AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1752. First settlement and organization of the thirteen original English colonies.

The earliest attempts at European settlement (as distinct from exploration) within the present limits of the United States were made by French Huguenots, under the patronage of Admiral Coligny; first at Port Royal, on Beaufort River, Florida, where Jean Ribaut, in 1562, placed a few colonists who soon abandoned the spot, and, two years later, at Fort Caroline, on St. John's River, in the same peninsula. The second colony, commanded by René de Laudonnière, was considerable in numbers but unpromising in character, and not likely to gain a footing in the country, even if it had been left in peace. It was tragically extinguished, however, by the Spaniards in September, 1565. The Spaniards had then established themselves in a fortified settlement at St. Augustine. It was surprised and destroyed in 1567 by an avenging Huguenot, but was promptly restored, and has survived to the present day,—the oldest city in the United States. (See FLORIDA.)—The first undertakings at colonization from England were inspired and led by Sir Walter Raleigh. After unsuccessful attempts, in conjunction with his elder half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, to establish settlements in Newfoundland, Raleigh obtained a grant from Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, under which he planted a colony of 108 settlers, commanded by Ralph Lane, on Roanoke Island, within the boundaries of the present State of North Carolina. In honor of the virgin queen of England, the name Virginia was given to the region at large. Lane's colonists had expected to find gold, silver and pearls, and lost interest in the country when none could be discovered. In June, 1586, they persuaded Sir Francis Drake, who had touched at Roanoke with his fleet, to carry them home. Soon afterwards, several ships, sent out by Raleigh with reinforcements and supplies, arrived at the island, to find it deserted. They left fifteen men to hold the ground; but a year passed before another expedition reached the place. The fort was then found in ruins; the fifteen men had disappeared, and nothing of their fate could be learned. The new colony perished in the same way—its fate an impenetrable secret of the savage land. This was Raleigh's last venture in colonization. His means were exhausted; England was absorbed in watching and preparing for the Spanish Armada; the time had not come to "plant an English nation in America." Sir Walter assigned his rights and interests in Virginia to a company of merchant adventurers, which accomplished nothing permanently. Twenty years passed before another vigorous effort of English colonization was made. In 1606 King James issued a royal charter to a company singularly formed in two branches or divisions, one having its headquarters at London, and known as the London Company, the other established at Plymouth and known as the Plymouth Company. Between them they were given authority to occupy territory in America from the 34th to the 45th degree of latitude; but the two grants overlapped in the middle, with the intention of giving the greater domain to the company which secured it by the earliest actual occupation. The London Company, holding the southward grant, despatched to Virginia a company of 105 emigrants, who established at Jamestown, on the northerly bank of James River (May 13, 1607), the first permanent English settlement in America, and founded there the colony and the subsequent State of Virginia. The colony survived many hardships and trials, owing its existence largely to the energy and courage of the famous Captain John Smith, who was one of its chief men from the beginning. Its prosperity was secured after a few years by the systematic cultivation of tobacco, for which the demand in England grew fast. In 1619, negro slavery was introduced; and by that time the white inhabitants of Virginia had increased to nearly 4,000 in number, divided between eleven settlements.

See VIRGINIA.

{3166}

Meantime, the Plymouth Company had done nothing effectively in the northward region assigned to it. Bartholomew Gosnold, in 1602, had examined the coast from Maine to Cape Cod, and built a lonely house on the island of Cuttyhunk; Martin Pring, in 1603, had loaded two ships with sassafras in Massachusetts Bay; a colony named in honor of the chief justice of England, Sir John Popham, had shivered through the winter of 1607-8 near the mouth of Kennebec River and then gone home; Captain John Smith, in 1614, had made a voyage to the country, in the interest of London merchants, and had named it New England; but no lasting English settlement had been made anywhere within the bounds of King James' grant to the Plymouth Company, at the waning of the year 1620, when Virginia was well grown. It was then by chance, rather than by design, that the small ship Mayflower landed a little company of religious exiles on the Massachusetts coast, at Plymouth (December 21, 1620), instead of bearing them farther south. Driven from England into Holland by persecutions, twelve years before, this congregation of Independents, or Separatists, now sought liberty of conscience in the New World. They came with a patent from the London, or South Virginia Company, and expected to plant their settlement within that company's territorial bounds. But circumstances which seemed adverse at the time bent their course to the New England shore, and they accepted it for a home, not doubting that the proprietors of the land, who desired colonists, would permit them to stay. The next year they received a patent from the Council for New England, which had succeeded to the rights of the Plymouth Company. Of the hardships which these Pilgrim Fathers endured in the first years of their Plymouth Plantation, who does not know the story! Of the courage, the constancy and the prudence with which they overcame their difficulties, who has not admired the spectacle! For eight years they remained the only successful colony in New England. Then came the memorable movement of Puritans out of Old England into New England, beginning with the little settlement at Salem, under John Endicott; expanding next year into the "Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay"; founding Dorchester, Roxbury, Charlestown, Watertown, and Boston, in 1630, and rapidly possessing and putting the stamp of the stern, strong Puritan character on the whole section of America which it planted with towns. In the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay a cleavage soon occurred, on lines between democratic and aristocratic or theocratic opinion, and democratic seceders pushed southwestwards into the Connecticut Valley, where Dutch and English were disputing possession of the country. There they settled the question decisively, in 1635 and 1636, by founding the towns of Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield and Springfield. Three years later the three towns first named confederated themselves in a little republic, with a frame of government which is the first known written constitution, and so gave birth to the future State of Connecticut. In 1638 New Haven was founded by a company of wealthy nonconformists from England, under the lead of their minister, John Davenport, and was a distinct colony until 1662, when it was annexed to Connecticut by a royal charter. Another State, the smallest of the New England commonwealths, was taking form at this same time, in a little wedge of territory on Narragansett Bay, between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the great apostle of a tolerant Christianity, driven from Salem by the intolerant Puritanism of the Bay, went forth with a few followers into the wilderness, bought land from the Narragansett Indians, and laid the foundations (1636) of the town of Providence. In that same year another small company of people, banished from Boston for receiving the teachings of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, bought the island of Aquidneck or Aquetnet from the Indians and settled at its northern end. This community was soon divided, and part of it removed to the southern end of the island, beginning a settlement which grew to be the town of Newport. The island as a whole received the name of the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode Island; and in 1644 its two settlements were united with Providence, under a charter procured in England by Roger Williams, forming the colony of Providence Plantations. In 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, entered into a confederation, from which Rhode Island was excluded, calling themselves "The United Colonies of New England." The object of the confederation was common action in defence against the Indians and the Dutch on the Hudson. It was the beginning of the cementing of New England. Before this time, small settlements had been planted here and there in northern New England, within territory covered by grants made to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. The province claimed by Gorges was subsequently called Maine, and that of Mason, New Hampshire; but Maine never rose to an independent colonial existence. After years of dispute and litigation, between 1651, and 1677, the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was extended over the province, and it remained the "District of Maine" until 1820, when Massachusetts yielded the separation which made it a sovereign state in the American Union. The New Hampshire settlements were also annexed to Massachusetts, in 1641, after Captain Mason's death; were separated in 1679, to be organized as a royal province; were temporarily reclaimed without royal authority in 1685; but finally parted from Massachusetts in 1692, from which time until the Revolution they remained a distinct colony.

See NEW ENGLAND; also MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, NEW HAMPSHIRE, and MAINE.

While the English were thus colonizing New England at the north and Virginia at the south, the Dutch, not recognizing their claims to the country between, had taken possession of the important valley of the Hudson River and the region around its mouth, and had named the country "New Netherland." The river had been discovered in 1609 by Henry Hudson, an English sailor, but exploring in the service of the Dutch. Trading with the Indians for furs was begun the next year; the coast and the rivers of the region were actively explored; a New Netherland Company was chartered; a trading-house, called Fort Nassau, was built on the Hudson as far to the north, or nearly so, as Albany; but no real colonization was undertaken until 1623. The New Netherland Company had then been superseded by the Dutch West India Company, with rights and powers extending to Africa as well as the West Indies and the North American coasts. It bought Manhattan Island and large tracts of land from the Indians, but had little success for several years in settling them. In 1629 it introduced a strange experiment, creating a kind of feudal system in the New World, by conveying great estates to individuals, called Patroons, or Patrons, who would undertake to colonize them, and who received with their territorial grant much of the powers and many of the characteristics of a feudal lord. {3167} Several Patroon colonies were established on a baronial scale; but, generally, the system did not produce satisfactory results, and in 1640 the Company tried the better experiment of making the trade of New Netherland free to all comers, offering small independent grants of land to settlers, and limiting the Patroons in their appropriation of territory. The Company government, however, as administered by the directors or governors whom it sent out, was too arbitrary to permit a colonial growth at all comparable with that of New England. Collisions with the English in Connecticut arose, over questions of boundary, but the latter held their ground. Southward, on the Delaware, the Swedes made a settlement where the city of Wilmington now stands, and refused to be warned off by the Dutch, who claimed the region. This Swedish colony prospered and enlarged itself during sixteen years, but was overcome by Director Stuyvesant of New Netherland in 1654. A little later than the appearance of the Swedes on the Delaware, certain colonists from New Haven bought lands from the Indians on both banks of the Delaware and made attempts at settlement, in what is now New Jersey and on the site of the future city of Philadelphia. The Dutch and Swedes combined against them and they failed. In 1664 the whole situation in this middle region was changed by the English conquest of New Netherland. The territory so acquired—or regained, if the original English claim had been good—passed then, by royal grant, to the Duke of York (afterwards King James II.), and became the proprietary province of New York.

See NEW YORK.

The Duke of York, in turn, the same year, transferred to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the part of his domain which lay between the Hudson and the Delaware, and it received the name of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey. Under encouragement from Berkeley and Carteret the New Haven colonization was resumed. Ten years later Berkeley sold his rights to a party of Quakers who were seeking a refuge for their persecuted sect in the New World. A division of the province was made and the Quaker proprietors received West Jersey, while East Jersey remained to Carteret.