Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 6)

K. Wolski, Poland, lectures 11-12.

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612. Intervention in Russia. Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654. The great revolt of the Cossacks. Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews. {2551} It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate, with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully. Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions. They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources, and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen, Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

W. R. Morfill, The Story of Russia, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: Count H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1.

POLAND: A. D. 1652. First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657. Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden. Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697; and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696. Abdication of John Casimir. War with the Turks. Election and reign of John Sobieski.

"In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in 1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion, caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees; and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it; and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern Europe. His fame increased during the six years which followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom; the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before been held in conjunction by the same individual. These dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne, Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671 and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When … Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked God for the most signal success which, for three centuries, Christendom had gained over the Infidel.' {2552} While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory, intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg, who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort; but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier, and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than 10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking up his position in two small villages on the banks of the Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out. Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October 1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in 1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed with political and domestic annoyances.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

… Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented from employing itself with effect upon great national objects. He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and 'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony. The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles, and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

History of Poland (Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: A. T. Palmer, Life of John Sobieski.

POLAND: A. D. 1683. Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696. War of the Holy League against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698. Disputed Election of a King. The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony, on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697; but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti, abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November. … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 2, chapter 4.

{2553}

POLAND: A. D. 1699. The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

POLAND: A. D. 1700. Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark against Charles XII. of Sweden.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707. Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden. Deposition of Augustus from the throne. Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

POLAND: A. D. 1709. Restoration of Augustus to the throne. Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

POLAND: A. D. 1720. Peace with Sweden. Recognition of Augustus. Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733. The election to the throne a European question. France against Russia, Austria and Prussia. Triumph of the three powers. The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

"It became clear that before long a struggle would take place for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her, should cherish French influences, and form a centre of resistance against the dominance of the northern powers. England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died: the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704; with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee, found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland submitted to Augustus III."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773. The First Partition and the events which led to it. The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

"In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia. Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman; how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe. Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound, therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort, deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support for her diplomatic action. {2554} The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia. That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left, and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety, however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country, occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the constitution, to establish a regular administration, to strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their political opponents, together with that of all the religious Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried the measure through by force and the act embodying it was signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman Catholic population of every district joined the Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When … the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to Poland.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had become a European question of the first importance; and no one felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey. … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war. Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side, simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar. {2555} It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount of donations and pensions which the individual senators and deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes. Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of the Sovereign, were continued."

H. von Sybel, The First Partition of Poland (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22).

"One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second, what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand, it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment. Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465 English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500, between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772, it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth little record."

T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great, book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6).

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter. 119 (volume 3).

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D. SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA). HABSBURG(AUSTRIA). RUSSIAN. POLISH. TURKISH. VENETIAN. THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA. AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797). AUSTRIAN PRUSSIAN RUSSIAN FRENCH SWEDISH DANISH PAPAL STATES ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE. THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792. The reformed Constitution of 1791 and its Russian strangulation.

"After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776, that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable. Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. … Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia, became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden; and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the head of all the independent members of the Germanic Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable combination against the power of Russia was in process of time formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte, concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to 1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress, and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State. They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions, during most of the previous two years, was reported to the Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free: these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise. The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient constitutional language and forms were preserved. The necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and, with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary. {2556} Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January, 1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and, being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with that very slender pretext with which she was always content. Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. … They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792, they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia, which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of 1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the 4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month … [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz; and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

Sir J. Mackintosh, Account of the Partition of Poland (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822; reprinted in Miscellaneous Works).

ALSO IN: H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 2, chapters 1 and 6, book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2).

A. Gielgud, The Centenary of the Polish Constitution (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547).

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796. The Second and Third Partitions. Extinction of Polish nationality.

"The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which, passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof, Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory, Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime, Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of 1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt, directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired. "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion. Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings, rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,' in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794, the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon. {2557} "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army, under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim), and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and Chelm."

A. Rambaud, History of Russia, volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: R. N. Bain, The Second Partition of Poland (English Historical Review, April, 1801).

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 7, chapter 5, book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3); and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1806. False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

POLAND: A. D. 1807. Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw, and given to the king of Saxony.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1809. Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia, by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1812. Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom, not encouraged by Napoleon.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815. The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna. The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia. Constitution granted by the Czar.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832. Rising against the Russian oppressor. Courageous struggle for independence. Early victories and final defeat. Barbarity of the conqueror.

"Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France]. The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh, indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet. Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a revolution which had expelled autocracy from France. Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news, drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it. Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps, under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet: the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the Poles without the consent of their representatives: for fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole: the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life. … The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the 30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course, failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the east upon Warsaw. {2558} The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners. Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals. Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the 26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of the contest. A negative victory of this character, however, was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses, resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened, too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka, Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk, succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo had not created so much consternation in the French capital. Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue. … On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of 1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her national libraries and public collections removed; the children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout Europe."

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

ALSO IN: J. Hordynski, History of the late Polish Revolution.

A. Rambaud, History of Russia, volume 2, chapter 14.

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-52, chapter 26.

POLAND: A. D. 1846. Insurrection in Galicia suppressed. Extinction of the republic of Cracow. Its annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

{2559}

POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864. The last insurrection.

"In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the 25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution. Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom. … On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded. The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June, 1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863, a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte. The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops. Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away; henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools, must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers, England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element, carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a European scandal."

W. R. Morfill, The Story of Poland, chapter 12.

POLAND: A. D. 1868. Complete incorporation with Russia.

By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

—————POLAND: End————

POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of which is uncertain.

POLEMARCH.

See GREECE: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

POLETÆ. POLETERIUM.

"Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased; revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which is to be included also the property of public debtors, who were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with the making of contracts for the public works, at least in certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the members of this branch of the government, and their sessions were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation), book 2, chapter 3.

POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

POLK, James K.: Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

POLKOS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

POLLENTIA, Battle of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

POLLICES.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

POLO, Marco, The travels of.

"This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the word, a traveller. He was one of those professional politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant, who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in transmuting himself into a Tartar. {2560} He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions: and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear, recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use, and partly for the information or entertainment of his master. These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe under the following circumstances. After a residence of seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice, accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement, he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name. This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its publication may be dated that intense and active interest in the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent of his observations, the long series of years they had occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported, and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative, combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world. Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and, as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the route over which he carries his reader is substantially that chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea, Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea, throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania, and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus, Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir, Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary. The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and despised."

E. J. Payne, History of the New World, book 1.

ALSO IN: The Book of Ser Marco Polo; edited by Colonel H. Yule.

T. W. Knox, Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls.

G. M. Towle, Marco Polo.

See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLYNESIANS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

POMERANIANS, The.

"Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and 'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the present moment. On the promontories which project into the Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena, section 7.

POMERIUM, The Roman.

"The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken, over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

H. M. Westropp, Early and Imperial Rome, page 40.

POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

POMPÆ.

The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they expended great sums of money, were so called.

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, book 2, chapter 12.

POMPEII.

"Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus, the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla, Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 60.

{2561}

Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the 23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age of Titus.

Pliny the Younger, Letters, book 6, epistles 16 and 20.

ALSO IN: T. H. Dyer, Pompeii.

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48; and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PONCAS, PONKAS, PUNCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

—————PONDICHERRY: Start————

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697. Founded by the French. Taken by the Dutch. Restored to France.

See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746. Siege by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761. Capture by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

—————PONDICHERRY: End————

PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus, King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

PONKAS.

See PONCAS.

PONS ÆLII.

A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where Newcastle is now situated.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 8.

PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

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

PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

"With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a military power from the continent, the English colonists were abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible that, with the loose system of organization and government common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders. This feeling of security among the English settlements was of short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic, self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English, when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and making the prediction that the French would soon recapture Canada and expel the English from the Western territories. Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760], was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes. Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the influence of Sir William Johnson.'

F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 187.

… His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort. On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit, had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac, on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs, with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer, having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen, immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of wishing to trade, and were treated as spies. {2562} Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May 16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May 25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf (Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days, when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst, the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and energy with which this duty was performed, under the most embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops available for the service were about 500 regulars recently arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment, consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country, where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769 he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

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

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac.

S. Farmer, History of Detroit and Michigan, chapter 38.

Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition.

A. Henry, Travels and Adventures in Canada, part 1, chapters 9-23.

W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir William Johnson, volume 2, chapters 9-12.

J. R. Brodhead, Documents Relative to Colonial History New York, volume 7.

PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. PONTIFICES, Roman.

See AUGURS.

PONTIFF, The Roman.

The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term implying an analogy between his office and that of the Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

See INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

PONTUS EUXINUS, EUXINUS PONTUS.

The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

POOR LAWS, The English.

"It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on which they subsisted. … {2563} It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which existed in the towns were also found in the country villages. … They were convenient instruments for charity before the establishment of a poor law, and they employed no inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all occasions, public and private, stir up the people to contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected. The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a considerable party in England which was willing enough to see the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the most obvious means by which this result could be attained would be to allege that all which could be needed for the relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy. They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any considerations of previous practice in these several institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years. In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book, and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5, cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on refusal, to the assessment of all property under the celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied, prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical history of labour in England is henceforward intimately associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even under the most urgent circumstances."

J. E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages, chapter 15 (volume 2).

"In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable and startling document to be found in the whole range of English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the Report upon the administration and practical operation of the Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by which they might be cured."

T. W. Fowle, The Poor Law, chapter 4.

"The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience. This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and disabled him from employing the better men who would have toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle, went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week for every illegitimate child. {2564} Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. … Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is no social difference in England so wide as that between the independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of the great principle that the independent labourer was not to be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal. They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours; but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. … In order to a complete and economical classification in the workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary control over such a system … a central board was indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August 1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid, and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole series of country parishes; farmers were employing more labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and, finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their annual amount during the five years before the poor-law commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very little above four."

H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years Peace, book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to Scotland.

T. W. Fowle, The Poor Law, chapter 4.

"The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor Law Board. This board, which was not represented in Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting it on a political level with the Home Office and the other important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction. This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office various duties in respect of municipal government and public health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board. Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until at the present time the Local Government Board is more directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than any other Government Department. There is not a village in the land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the official communications of the Board are not addressed."

E. Porritt, The Englishman at Home, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: Sir G. Nicholls, History of the English Poor-Law.

F. Peek, Social Wreckage.

POOR MEN OF LYONS. POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

See WALDENSES.

POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

POPE, General John. Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

Virginia campaign.

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

POPE, The.

See PAPACY.

POPHAM COLONY, The.

See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

POPISH PLOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

POPOL VUH, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

{2565}

POPOLOCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

POPULARES.

See OPTIMATES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788. The discovery. The naming. The first settlement.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

PORT MAHON.

See MINORCA.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

—————PORT ROYAL: Start————

PORT ROYAL, The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660. The monastery under Mère Angelique and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley. Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius. Their conflict with the Jesuits.

"The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived from the general designation of the fief or district in which the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same natural features which attracted the eye of the devout solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife, Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers. The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204. They were designed by the same architect who built the Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been distributed without any regard to the fitness of the occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a merited position and name in the annals of France. In the beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters. The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602, Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in 1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the strengthening impulses in different directions which her religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port Royal."