Volume I—A To Elba (continued 2)

J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 4, pages 61-66.

{14}

"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again. Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark, steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap; the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon, came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and military commander with the knives at their throats.' General Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold this place on the part of Government until I receive its order to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets, re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at length, when it became certain that General Pollock was forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad [April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a ditch."

J. McCarthy, History of our own Times, volume 1, chapter 11.

ALSO IN J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.

G. R. Gleig, Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan.

Lady Sale, Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan.

Mohan Lal, Life of Dost Mohammed, chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869. The British return to Cabul. Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and, after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni, the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough, brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale), who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp. General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor. {15} Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war, when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs, and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom, including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone, asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin, however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of 'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000 muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country which he brought under his power. However, after various changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son, Abdurrahman."

P. F. Walker, Afghanistan, pages 45-51.

ALSO IN J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.

G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapters 11.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881. The second war with the English and its causes.

The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in 1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he promised that he would not press for the admission of any English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return expected by England for this attitude of friendly non-interference was that every other foreign state, and especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our interests were so closely involved. … But a different view was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta, Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country. In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who thought with him in England prophesied from the first the disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. … Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of the Treaty was the admission of an English representative within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation. {16} Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave him to understand that the English would proceed to secure their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the two countries were in this uncomfortable condition, information reached India that a Russian mission had been received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all parties from the first, the English armies were entirely successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands, consenting to place his foreign relations under British control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He received in exchange a promise of support by the British Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident, the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save their hatred of English interference, the people seething with anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879] after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the previous war was avoided. The English troops which were withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the people required under pain of death, and the country scoured to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass. … A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to 20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the north signs were visible that the only possible successor to the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army under General Stewart was to march northwards, and, suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The first part of the programme was carried out. … The second part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. … Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to accept their overtures. Though little was known about him, rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee, and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force, numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns, about half the English troops returned to Candahar. {17} General Primrose, who was in command, had no choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment, and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob continued for a while, and until it was over the English troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881] occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally accepted as Ameer."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 534-544.

ALSO IN A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2.

Duke of Argyll, The Afghan Question from 1841 to 1878.

G. B. Malleson, The Russo-Afghan Question.

—————AFGHANISTAN: End—————

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.

See LIBYANS.

AFRICA: The Roman Province.

"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far, all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa, and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia. We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or, as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name [Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. … Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great desert passed as imperial land."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13.

See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.

AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

AFRICA: Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709, and 908-1171; also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after; and SUDAN.

AFRICA: Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast. The rounding of the Cape.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.

AFRICA: Dutch and English Colonization.

See SOUTH AFRICA.

AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807. Settlement of Sierra Leone.

See SIERRA LEONE.

AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822. The founding of Liberia.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891. Partition of the interior between European Powers.

"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State was probably the most important result of the Conference. … Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours, Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea. … The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company, constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown, embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich. … At present it allows the French Congo territories to expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit of the basin of the Casini. {18} On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha, Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On the 27th February, the day following the signature of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief, or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr. Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and the British and German Governments arranged questions between them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886, which was afterwards superseded by the more definite Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs, whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi. Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land, having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions. Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection. By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east, and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889, the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter. It was declared in this charter that the principal field of the operations of the British South African Company shall be the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces, except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891, Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh (about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute (43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years … has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her territory. … The French have established a claim over the country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia. {19} A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain] with the following results: France became a consenting party to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main provisions the following definitions of territory: "The Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr. Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.) The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain, however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia. Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June, 1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State and German East Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of goods through territories in which two or more powers are indirectly interested."

A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Edition, Revised, 1892.

ALSO IN: J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone, stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs (with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including Abyssinians and Gallas.

A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium: Africa, appendix).

ALSO IN: R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volumes 2-3.

R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of Africa.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

—————AFRICA: End—————

AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGADE. See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.

AGAS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

AGE OF STONE. AGE OF BRONZE, &c.

See STONE AGE.

{20}

AGELA. AGELATAS.

The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the Agelatas.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 2.

AGEMA, The.

The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

See SENONES.

AGER PUBLICUS.

"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land, the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor given remained public property, and it was occupied, according to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We should be more inclined to believe that this public land was occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes; but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them. There was no survey made of the public land which was from time to time acquired, but there were certainly general boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had become public property. The lands which were sold and given were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however, that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least, were due to the state."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11.

AGGER.

See CASTRA.

AGGRAVIADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.

AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AGINNUM. Modern Agen.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

AGNATI. AGNATIC.

See GENS, ROMAN.

AGNIERS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.

AGOGE, The.

The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.

AGORA, The.

The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation, for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication, both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and states was carried on; from here started the processions which continually passed between holy places of kindred origin, though locally separated. Although originally all public transactions were carried on in these market-places, special local arrangements for contracting public business soon became necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.

In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was called the Agora.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20.

AGRÆI, The.

See AKARNANIANS.

AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.

"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these laws all land was declared common property, and that at certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian laws were not private property, but the property of the state. They were, originally, those public lands which had been the domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in whole or in part."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8.

See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.

{21}

AGRI DECUMATES, The.

"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of Augustus]."

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36..

"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri Decumates of the Roman writers."

R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.

See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

AGRIGENTUM.

Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and grandeur.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 3.

See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.

Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

AIGINA.

See ÆGINA.

AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny, held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120.

AIX, Origin of.

See SALYES.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: The Capital of Charlemagne.

The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces, gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe. It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and the improvement of music."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian Succession (1748).

The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts, and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation. England in like manner restored the few conquests she had made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four years it had still to run; but no real compensation was obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa, the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which remained with the Genoese. {22} For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick [the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery, by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious projects that had been conceived during the war, that of Frederick alone was substantially realized."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 3.

"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe, it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was formed against her."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2.

ALSO IN W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30.

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 108 (volume 3).

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.

"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least important, but at the same time one of the most estimable peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks, by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had, in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of particular cities also occur."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 4, section 1.

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf: they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners, sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians. Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman, and so they seem to have continued with little alteration until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian character."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

AKKAD. AKKADIANS.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

AKKARON.

See PHILISTINES.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

See KORKYRA.

ALABAMA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY; CHEROKEES.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542. Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629. Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663. Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

{23}

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711. French occupation and first settlement. The founding of Mobile.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732. Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763. Cession and delivery to Great Britain. Partly embraced in West Florida.

See SEVEN YEARS' WAR; and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763: and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781. Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783. Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787. Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804. All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803. Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813. Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814. The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819. Organized as a Territory. Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3, thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January). Secession from the Union.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1862. General Mitchell's Expedition.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August). The Battle of Mobile Bay. Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April). The Fall of Mobile. Wilson's Raid. End of the Rebellion.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868. Reconstruction.

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

—————ALABAMA: End—————

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862. In their Origin. The Earlier Confederate cruisers. Precursors of the Alabama.

The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April, 1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical operations. She became the terror of the American merchant service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora. Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways, especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators determined to procure from those friends some powerful piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and, in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily. Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well satisfied from information received that she was designed for the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British government to the matter so early as the 18th of February, 1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H. Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War, volume 2, chapter 21.

{24}

The fate of the Florida is related below—A. D. 1862-1865.

R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapters 9-26.

ALSO IN J. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, chapters 30-31 (volume 2).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864. The Alabama, her career and her fate.

"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander: 'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.' The contract for her construction was signed by Captain Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' … On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the British authorities—a point maintained throughout the struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for the maintenance and performance of their international duties, and that they would listen to no representations from the officials of the United States which did not furnish technical evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears that notwithstanding this official information from the Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the 'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.' Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida, whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session, Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).

The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August. Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command. Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the westward, and making several captures, she approached within 200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the 18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the 19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the 7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th, she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope, numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August, was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low. In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864, cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures, including the Highlander, Sonora, etc. {25} From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel, and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun, one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders, smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and their tonnage was about the same."

E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, page 549.

Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June 19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart, as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise, we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her, within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen, shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats, and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time, when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats, and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively, and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and others, and also the very officer who had come on board to surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173 projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners' accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded 18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225.

ALSO IN J. R. Soley, The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War; volume 1, chapter 7.

J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 3.

R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapters 29-55.

J. D. Bullock, Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865. Other Confederate cruisers.

"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins], in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British shipyards."

R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession, chapter 24.

{26}

The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent, Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned (October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21 were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred … two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond; yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way southward he received information, August 2d, of the final collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered her to the United States.

J. R. Soley, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869. Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States against Great Britain. First stages of the Negotiation. The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the 20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under instructions from the Government of the United States. In this note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama, and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the directions which I have received from my Government to solicit redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.' … Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December, 1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were lodged with the national and individual claims already preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of American vessels transferred to the British flag during the war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government must decline either to make reparation and compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of 1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that, should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,' to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for damages which were suffered by them during the period of the civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found, and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868. It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the 14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States which may have been presented to either government for its interposition with the other since the 26th July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

The Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division 13, section 2.

{27}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871. Renewed Negotiations. Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain; and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the British Government with the United States, and the inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly, on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle the various pending questions between the two Governments affecting the British possessions in North America. To this overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to include the differences growing out of incidents of the late Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed, by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows: "On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871, completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, pages 18-20, and 11-13.

ALSO IN A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh, chapter 12 (volume 2).

A. Badeau, Grant in Peace, chapter 25.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871. The Treaty of Washington.

The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871, and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the 17th day of the following June, set forth its principal agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas differences have arisen between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested to name one. … The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case: {28} A neutral Government is bound—First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive, relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to 25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice given by either party of its wish to terminate the arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19 secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude. Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty." Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners, one by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles 24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland, St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32 extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration of two years after either of the two high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.