Volume I—A To Elba (continued 22)

C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great. book 3 (volume 1).

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609. The Jülich-Cleve contest.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627. Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.

See GERMANY: 1627-1629.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631. Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632. Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634. Desertion of the Protestant cause. Alliance with the Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

{309}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688. The Great Elector. His development of the strength of the Electorate. His successful wars. His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia. Fehrbellin.

"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an alliance with Holland; his third—not in order of action, for in that respect it took first place—to raise the nucleus of an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his fortresses. … To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he temporised until his armed force had attained the number of 8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his position, and with so much effect that in the discussions preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. … The Peace once signed, Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in his dominions. … He specially cherished his army. We have seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in 1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654, Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. … The right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however, contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. … War ensued. In that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant, and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable, Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then, thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers—in the complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic William withdrew his troops. … Again did John Casimir recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him. He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty, by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed, the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether—the new enemies who had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself—he had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue, with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field, pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January 1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued, and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of Brandenburg and Prussia—a union upon which a great man was able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia. {310} In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict, "the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin. The victors, utterly exhausted—they had scarcely quitted their saddles for eleven days—were too worn out to pursue. It was not till the following morning that, refreshed and recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of Mecklenburg. … The Great Elector promptly followed up his victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the title of King."

G. B. Malleson, The Battle Fields of Germany, chapter 8.

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

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648. The Peace of Westphalia. Loss of part of Pomerania. Compensating acquisitions.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679. In the Coalition against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678; also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696. The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697. The Treaty of Ryswick. Restitutions by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700. The Elector made King of Prussia.

See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

—————BRANDENBURG: End—————

BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.

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

BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

BRAZIL: Origin of the name.

"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood, 'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'—called in the Portuguese language 'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,' 'coals of fire,'—the land whence it came was termed the 'land of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera Cruz, or Santa Cruz."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the Brazilians, chapter 3.

See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

BRAZIL: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI. GUARANI. TUPUYAS; also GUCK or Coco GROUP.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504. Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661. Portuguese colonization and agriculture. Introduction of Slavery. The coming of the Jesuits. Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.

"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled, though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered, and the colonists betook themselves from the first to agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III., extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians, nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and brought their households with them to the new country. Thus they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East; and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the culture of the sugar cane. {311} The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded order of the Jesuits. … John III. in [1549] sent out six of the order with the first governor of Brazil. … The Dutch, made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design was a main cause of its failure. … But … the profits of the company … rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. … The man whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince John Maurice of Nassau. … In a short time he had greatly extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends; they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643, they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was therefore supposed to be out of the question. … But the recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645. The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic Dutch. … John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for 8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them. But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came more and more into the hands of the English."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN: R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 9 and 15; volume 2, chapters 1-4.

R. Southey, History of Brazil, volumes 1-2.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1524. Conceded to Portugal.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641. The Republic of St. Paul. The Paulistas or Mamelukes.

"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho, having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga, after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of this establishment were such, that permission was soon after given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased rapidly. … A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits soon after established themselves with a number of Indians they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more than nominal. … The mixture produced an improved race, 'the European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is much more likely that the free and popular government which they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other country. … They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account, on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it was during this period they displayed that active and enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated. … While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. … They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. … As they had fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their college, and put their principal to death, expelled the remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war, the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part of the Brazils in armed troops. … The foundation was laid of enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day, although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in the year 1756. … When the house of Braganza, in 1640, ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves. They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese government."

H. M. Brackenridge, Voyage to South America, volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, chapter 23 (volume 2).

{312}

BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541. Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560. Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777. The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary disputes with Spain.

"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the Dutch] … was used by the Portuguese government only to get up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer, La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494 [see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. … By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso, in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the old arrangements were—at least, for their American colonies—the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the 'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved to be vain. … The unsolved question descended as an evil heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 23-24.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 3.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1713. The Portuguese title confirmed.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1759. Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822. Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty. The founding of the independent Empire.

"While anarchy and ruin … overspread the greater part of the beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom. The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life was breathed into every department of the state. After a few years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI. to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived, and that England should be deprived of her free trade to Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence, his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza, which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more humiliating to the Brazilians. {313} The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal, and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent, which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger: he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window, where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou morte':—the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers, and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a modern colony achieving its independence, and separating itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."

Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations, volume 2, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, chapters 1-7.

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865. Wars with the Argentines. Abdication of Dom Pedro I, The Guerra dos Cabanos.

"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in 1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor, who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro. The next period was the most disturbed one that the young Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese, without considering that they should not be able to quench the fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury of the whole colored population turned against all whites, Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction. More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians, half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 25-26.

ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, 1808-1831.

See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870. The war with Paraguay.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888. Emancipation of Slaves.

The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of slave women shall be considered of free condition.' … Such children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number of slaves. … The passage of this law did not prove merely prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves without compensation. … I am happy to say that the number liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer first went to Brazil [1852] … it was estimated that there were 3,000,000 in slavery. … There were at the beginning of 1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the Brazilians, chapter 28.

"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only 15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November greatly accelerated this progress, because it made slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to exist in Brazil."

H. C. Dent, A Year in Brazil, pages 281-296.

{314}

"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of $485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent, gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."

Statesman's Year-Book, 1890, page 391.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891. Revolution. Overthrow of the Empire. Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil. Religious freedom declared

"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November [1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the Government had been credited by the Republican journals with the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire constituting the States and each State arranging its own constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor received intimation that he and his family must leave the country within twenty-four hours:—'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day; but after listening to the officer's explanation that a conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed, the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. … It was said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December 18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."

Annual Register, 1889, part 1, pages 444-448.

"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation. There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in their action. … A coalition of the army officers and the constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20 provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. … The Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time. … He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits, who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when the record of his public services and of his private virtues is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of centralization that practically deprived the great series of federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received from his father was not modified in any essential respect during his long reign."

New York Tribune Extra, volume 1, number 12 (1889).

"A new Constitution … was ratified by the first National Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic, under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be administered under a republican form of government, with power to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or the preservation of internal order or for the execution of Federal laws. {315} Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21 years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The executive authority is vested in the President … elected by the people directly for the term of six years, and …. not eligible for the succeeding term. … Senators are elected by the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three years. … The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every 70,000 inhabitants. … It is declared that no sect or church shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In 1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the President that were voted down by Congress. In November the President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution. The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned. "Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the revolutionary committee as President in his stead … and the country soon settled down under the new government."

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891, pages 91-96.

"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent upon military force, was a good augury for the future of Brazil. … In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of disestablishing the Church. … Fortunately for Brazil there was no compromise of the disestablishment question. … Under the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the federal or State governments. … Every church was made free in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential. … Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."

I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 4.

See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

—————BRAZIL: End—————

BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRECKINRIDGE, John C. Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BREDA: A. D. 1575. Spanish-Dutch Congress.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BREDA: A. D. 1590. Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BREDA: A. D. 1637. Taken by the Prince of Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

BREDA: A. D. 1793. Taken and lost by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

—————BREDA: End—————

BREDA, Declaration from.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

BREDA, Treaty of (1666).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

BREHON LAWS.

"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous principles which they applied to the decision of the cases which came before them. The earlier English writers found no terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of these native judges, and their contempt for the principles upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. … The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books, and the translation [publication?] of the most important of them by the order of the government, have disposed of the arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted, that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence present no characteristics of any special character, although in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not found elsewhere; … the laws which existed among the native Irish were in substance those which are found to have prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of social progress; as the social development of the nation was prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of scholastic philosophy and civil law. … The learning of the Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator; and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute should be decided."

A. G. Richey, Short History of the Irish People, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir H. Maine, Early History of Institutions, lecture 2.

BREISACH: A. D. 1638. Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

BREISACH: A. D. 1648. Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREITENFELD, Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

The second battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

{316}

BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries. In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BREMEN: A. D. 1525 Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

BREMEN: A. D. 1648. Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREMEN: A. D. 1720. The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.

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

BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803. One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BREMEN: A. D. 1810. Annexed to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815. Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

BREMEN: A. D. 1815. Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic Confederation.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

BREMEN: A. D. 1888. Surrender of free privileges. Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

—————BREMEN: End—————

BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638. Taken by the French. Recovered by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

BRENHIN, The Cymric title.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BRENNI, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

BRENTFORD, Battle of.

Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut, or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1512. Capture and pillage by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1849. Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian Haynau.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

—————BRESCIA: End—————

BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760. In the wars of Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY); 1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.

BREST: A. D. 1694. Repulse of the English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

BRETAGNE.

See BRITTANY.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.

"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz., the propensity to religious association, … and, likewise, the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. … Here, then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. … The first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. … His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting the records of Christian antiquity. … Hence, he had long before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists, thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these good theological works, giving profitable employment to the youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society. Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset, and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its main objects. … The members were called 'Brethren of the Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and 'Gregorians.' … Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the community. From this source, and from donations and legacies made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world, with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve the principle of individual liberty."

C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, volume 2, part 2, chapter l.

"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and almost in every village, so that popular education was the rule."

W. E. Griffis, The Influence of the Netherlands, page 3.

ALSO IN: S. Kettlewell, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life, chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.

See BEGUINES.

BRETIGNY, Treaty of.

The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne, Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and Guisnes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

BRETWALDA.

A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this 'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia, who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin, Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to Kent."

O. Elton, Origins of English History, page 392, note.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, volume 1, appendix B.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527, and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{317}

BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.

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

BREYZAD. The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.

See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.

BRIAN BORU, The reign in Ireland of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

BRIDGE, Battle of the.

A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of them slain or drowned.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIENNE, Battle of.

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

BRIGANTES, The.

One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman conquest they held the whole interior northward from the Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by Agricola.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES, and A. D. 43-53; also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BRIGANTINE. BERGANTIN.

See CARAVELS.

BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

BRILL, The capture of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BRISBANE.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.

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

BRISSOTINS.

The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its leaders.

BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BRISTOL: 12th Century. Its slave trade and other commerce.

"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been in general character and aspect not unlike what it is to-day—a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty current which still kept its heathen name derived from the sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however, reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S. Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the experiences of the canons of Laon."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 1.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1497. Cabot's voyage of discovery.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1645. The storming of the city by Fairfax.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1685. The commerce and wealth of the city.

"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood Bristol, then the first English seaport. … Pepys, who visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high; for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but houses. … A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned, and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners regaled their visitors. … This luxury was supported by a thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol. … The number of houses appears, from the returns of the hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. … The population of Bristol must therefore have been about 29,000."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1831. The Reform Bill Riots.

The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol. "The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality; and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the whole kingdom. … {318} The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles Wetherell—then at the height of his unpopularity as a vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill—was recorder; and there he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial capacity. … The symptoms of discontent were such as to induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse, which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the city. … Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by the magistrates themselves. … On Saturday, October 29, Sir Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was 'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it was after violence had been committed, and when the passions of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings. On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion House without opposition; and from the time they got into the cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without orders, and their officers without that sanction of the magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six hundred. … The mob declared openly what they were going to do; and they went to work unchecked—armed with staves and bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the Mansion House—to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail, the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession, till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins. The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning, after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary became active; and from that time the city was in a more orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it. … The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of the military. The result of that court-martial caused more emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the prosecution of his brother-magistrates."

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

—————BRISTOL: End—————

BRITAIN, Count and Duke of. The military commanders of Roman Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337, also ARTHUR, KING.

BRITAIN, The name.

See BRITANNIA.

BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.

"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester, Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani, and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. … The interior of the island northward was occupied by the Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the Jugantes and the Cangi]. {319} The Brigantes are believed to have been the original inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by successive invasions. … Wales, also, was inhabited by a primitive population. The northern counties … was the territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties … were held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor, Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni, inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. … Next to them were the Gadeni. … The Selgovæ inhabited Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones, the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior, known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth, northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes north of the Brigantes."

T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.

J. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54. Cæsar's invasions.

Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men. Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages; whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the continent, having remained in Britain not more than three weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury. A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance, compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the site of the modern town of St. Albans,—but the point is It disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus, and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast, reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this occasion was about sixty days.

Cæsar, Gallic War, book 4, chapters 20-36, and book 7, chapters 7-33.

ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapters 9 and 11-12.

T. Lewin, Invasion of Britain by Cæsar.

F. T. Vine, Cæsar in Kent.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2.

BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53. Conquests of Claudius.

Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one, Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes, whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered. Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot, into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes, and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern England, were still independent, but distracted by internal dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive. This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A. D. 43 and 54.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

{320}

BRITAIN: A. D. 61. Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.

From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona, or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently, though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the practice of their unholy superstition. … Here they retained their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers; but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king, Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum (Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than 70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great highway of Watling Street—gathering up his forces in hand as he went—to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was, presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific commander.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 5.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84. Campaigns of Agricola.

For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A. D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain. The military power in the island suffered great demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who had attained first in Britain the footing from which he climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius Agricola was the soldier and statesman—a great man in each character—whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and when none even of his own officers expected active service, Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered, drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district, lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of forts from sea to sea. … In the third year of his command, Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress, reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. … Here he repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The next two years were spent in strengthening his position and organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of which was made memorable by the famous battle of the Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall. Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was envious and afraid of his renown.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 61.

ALSO IN: Tacitus, Agricola.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

{321}

BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries. Introduction of Christianity.

See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.

BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211. Campaigns of Severus.

A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons, Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said; above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them to extermination, when he died.

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297. Rebellion of Carausius.

"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] … the pirate fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself, therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A. D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so many that the history of Carausius has been written from his medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had well-nigh established their power over the south portion of Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive battle, in which that usurper was slain. … Allectus held the government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are found."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 4.

BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337. Constantine's Organization.

Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a 'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five new provinces. … Britain was under the orders of the Count of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore, governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:

1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.

2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel on the west.

3. Flavia Cæsariensis,—all the middle portion of Britain, from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.

4. Maxima Cæsariensis,—the Brigantian territory, lying between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier of the Lower Isthmus.

5. Valentia,—the most northern portion, lying between the barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.

Britain: A. D. 367-370. Deliverance By Theodosius.

The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death, proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes of Caledonia—the Picts, now beginning to be associated with the Scots from Ireland—became bolder from year to year in their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious, that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them. Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having been able to bring them to an engagement."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 5.

"The splendour of the cities and the security of the fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."

BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388. Revolt of Maximus.

In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by birth, occupying a high official position in that province, forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul, attended by a large multitude,—130,000 men and 70,000 women, says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany, which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons; Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. … Theodosius adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 5.

{322}

BRITAIN: A. D. 407. The Usurpation Of Constantine.

"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been already borne by a general who had been carried by a British army to supreme dominion."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 5.

The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made, on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during two or three years. The seat of his government was established at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius, at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius, approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the way (A. D. 411).

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 10.

BRITAIN: A. D. 410. Abandoned By The Romans.

"Up to the moment … when the Imperial troops quitted Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses. But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the Empire. … The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain, where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in 407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain' who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians. … They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade Britain provide for its own government and its own defence. Few statements are more false than those which picture the British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact, through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the Empire. … For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still the least formidable. …. It was with this view that Britain turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and strove to find … troops whom she could use as mercenaries against the Pict."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, introduction.

ALSO IN: J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 57-66.

BRITAIN: A. D. 446. The Last Appeal To Rome.

"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446. … Ætius was unable to help them."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, page 63.

"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."

C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 12.

{323}

BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.

BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY. The Unsubdued Britons.

"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the island, where they maintained themselves in several small states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more to Germanic influence; the others protected by their mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually decreasing independence. … In the south-west we meet with the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur, which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas (Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a large British population maintained itself in those parts among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the present day we call Wales, was divided into several states." The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in the early part of the 10th century. … The partition of Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. … Of Dyfed, during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia, frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and precision in that which we possess. … An obscurity still more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122.