Volume I—A To Elba (continued 33)

History of the Boroughs of Great Britain; together with the Cinque Ports, volume 3.

The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount Palmerston, and Earl Granville.

CINTRA, Convention of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CIOMPI, Tumult of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CIRCASSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.

See DONATISTS.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522. Magellan's voyage: the first in history.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580. Drake's voyage.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

—————CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End—————

CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.

"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times, one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in the four seasons of the year. … Another interpretation preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had espoused. … Constantinople adopted the follies, though not the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens, who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a feeble government. … A sedition, which almost laid Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the mob and large districts in it were burned, including many churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier, Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the hippodrome and in the streets.

CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.

"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was successively restored and ornamented by the republican government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum, but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a vestige of it now being left."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction and chapter 12.

See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.

CIRENCESTER, Origin of.

See CORINIUM.

CIRRHA.

See DELPHI.

CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586, and DELPHI.

CIRTA.

An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in Algeria is on its site.

See NUMIDIANS.

CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

CISALPINE REPUBLIC.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL); 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER); 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.

CISLEITHANIA.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

CISPADANE GAUL. Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.

See PADUS.

CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL), and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CISSIA (KISSIA).

See ELAM.

{473}

CISTERCIAN ORDER. The Monastery of Citeaux.

"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a passion for wandering and for study which led him first to Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy, he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site which they chose—in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far from Dijon—was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn, dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new house took its name of 'the Cistern'—Cistellum, commonly called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to carry into practice their views of monastic duty. … Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to become inseparably associated with the name of another English saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony, whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance into their founder's native land."

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

ALSO IN: S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21.

CITEAUX, The Monastery of.

See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CITIES, Chartered.

See COMMUNE; also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.

CITIES, Free, of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany

"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically independent republics; and those which, while owning some dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government. The local distribution of the former, which is curiously unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. … The Imperial free cities … were self-governed, under constitutions in which the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will of the ruler counted for more and more. … In these cities the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land, retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak, directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that their liberties and privileges were bound up with the maintenance of the general order. … In them, too, as we might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."

C. Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation, page 16.

"Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133 free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a 'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year 1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places 'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg, Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347] Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne, Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:—1. They were exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon." Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands of a military and civil governor. … On the imperial towns becoming independent, the administration of the town was entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons, according to the population, and the members of this kind of town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser. {474} The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister, Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. … Many of the imperial towns gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In like manner we find that others either lost their privileges or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and, in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet. The principal confederations brought into existence by the struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] … At the Diet held at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally recognized, they were formed into a separate college. … By the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz., Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy with the exception of the following six:—Augsburg, Nuremberg, Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in 1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to the year 1866."

W. J. Wyatt, History of Prussia, volume 2, pages 427-432.

"According to the German historians the period of the greatest splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th centuries. … In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless, the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts their position as immediate states, that is to say, states which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the form of their constitution. … Their population decreased, and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing modern society. Trade forsook them—their ancient energy and patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."

A. de Tocqueville, State of Society in France before 1789, note C.

See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.

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

The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the Germanic Confederation then formed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.

Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in 1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last of the "free cities."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

CITY.

See BOROUGH.

CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.

"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,' with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for violet."

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

CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812. Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had received the Roman citizenship."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 17.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, The First.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-

The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

{475}

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people. When that result was attained, the final struggle with patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan agency. They began to see the need of some method by which fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of the great problems of the future. No government had then solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of any political action, or mere official influence, became more and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously threatened their power, unless the party system itself could be made more acceptable to the people. … There was an abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his patronage—no way was opened by which a person of merit could get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of every port of entry to the public service, which made it tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in its ranks—subserviency to members and to ministers—and electioneering on their behalf—these were the virtues before which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole system increased. … During the Melbourne administration, between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a condition for admission to the service, came from two very different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared that they could not do the public work with such poor servants as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation to attempt at once. These examinations—several of them being competitive—introduced by public officers in self-defence many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example, they had brought about a reform that arrested public attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher salaries were bidden for them for private service.' … These examinations were steadily extended from office to office down to the radical change made in 1853. … It had been provided, long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the patronage of nomination for such instruction. … If it seems strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same influence which sent them there was used to keep them there. … Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852 and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the government to command the respect of the more intelligent portion of the people of India, and there was a still more alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad in the army as in the civil offices. … There was, in short, a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to save British supremacy in India. A change of system was entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students … shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty, who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India to every British citizen. … In 1853, the British Government had reached a final decision that the partisan system of appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial control of nominations by members of Parliament, however guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. … The administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. … It was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English Executive … for the time being. The first step decided upon was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service. Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in November of the same year. … A system of competitive examinations … [was] recommended. … The report was accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into effect, from which quote the following passages. {476} … 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting by the surest of all motives—the desire a man has of bettering himself in life. … They will have attained their situations in an independent manner through their own merits. The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the higher classes of official men. … The effect of it in giving a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an English administration for the home government. I hardly need repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were (with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations. … But the great feature of the report, which made it really a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was as theoretical as it was radical. … A chorus of ridicule, indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the official and partisan places of politics. The government saw that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in which to trust the tender years of such a reform. … The executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the people, and also requested the written opinions of a large number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon it was requested. … About the time that English public opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official report, and before any final action had been taken upon it, the Aberdeen administration went out. … Lord Palmerston came into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical statesman. … Upon his administration fell the duty of deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report. … He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of patronage. … Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's administration advised that an order should be made by the Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

D. B. Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain.

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States] arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens 'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. … The civil service of these states was seriously damaged in quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public service in return, and the line which separates taxation from robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up an idea that there is something especially democratic, and therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of office with a keen zest. During the forty years between Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's administration the number of changes made in the civil service was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the spoils.' … In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful people."

J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, pages 261-264.

"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made [toward a reform]. … This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it, and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil Service, such regulations as would best promote its efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may 'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil Service.' {477} In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000 asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an examination in his office. … Under Grant's commission, open competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in the New York Post office. Although this commission labored under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by the President and his cabinet. … The rules adopted by Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis. They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the Reform. … Other able men took an active part in the movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. … President Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March, 1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to Mr. Burt by the Collector. … In 1880, Postmaster James revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office. … When the President, desiring that these examinations should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this, competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the methods and progress of reform in other countries, President Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great Britain.' … For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received no compensation from the Government, not even his personal expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due, also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform Associations."

H. Lambert, The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States, pages 6-10.

"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result of a conference among members of civil service reform associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children. The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of 38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87 members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due, undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was that of a Congress of which probably the members had very little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject. But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which always commands the future. … The passage of the law was the first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement. The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and other important custom houses and post offices, without the least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party independence, that, in these chief branches of the public service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the public service to which the reformed methods apply are now included within those methods."

G. W. Curtis, Address at Annual Meeting of the National Civil-Service Reform League. 1891.

CIVILIS, Revolt of.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).

CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

{478}

CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.

St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D. 1091-1153] … revived the practice in the monastery of Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux, which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of the perfect monk. … He was not a Pope, but he was greater than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the history of the Christian Church is the history of the influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.

"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of persons who desired to join the society which could boast of so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known as the Valley of Wormwood. … The district pertained to the bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed abbey of Clairvaux."

H. Stebbing, History of Christ's Universal Church, chapter 26.

ALSO IN: A. Butler, Lives of the Saints, volume 8.

W. F. Hook, Ecclesiastical Biographies, volume 2.

J. C. Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard.

See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CLANS, Highland.

"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus, and they were distinguished from each other by their patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] … In considering the genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very important meaning. Their rights were derived through the common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to each other, indicated their position in the succession, as well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. … During the 16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; … but they were followed in a few years by an important Statute, which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans, and led to another great change in the theory of their descent. … The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to maintain their position when a native descent had lost its value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and spurious charters inserted. … The form which these pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line, thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete with that of the great Norman families with a feudal succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. … The conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees which have been popularly accepted at different times has brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung; but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine annals of the national history, and became rooted in those parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible, however, from these genealogies, and from other indications, to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having apparently a closer connection with each other, and these groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into which the Gaelic population was divided before they became broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called, were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and partly of foreign descent."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3).

{479}

CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CLARIAN ORACLE, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54. Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.

CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).

CLAY, Henry, The war of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

The Tariff question.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824, and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

The Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

Defeat in the Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.

The Compromise Measures of 1850.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and Charcoals.

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 8, page 204.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

CLEAR GRITS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CLEMENT II., Pope, A. D. 1046-1047. Clement III., Pope, A. D. 1187-1191. Clement IV., Pope, A. D. 1265-1268. Clement V., Pope, A. D. 1305-1314. Clement VI., Pope, A. D. 1342-1352. Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon). Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1523-1534. Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605. Clement IX., Pope, A. D. 1667-1669. Clement X., Pope, A. D. 1670-1676. Clement XI., Pope, A. D. 1700-1721. Clement XII., Pope, A. D. 1730-1740. Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769. Clement XIV., Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.

CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

And Mark Antony.

See ROME: B. C. 31.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.

"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment [London] while the other is on its way to the United States of America."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 20, note.

The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New York, having been brought over and erected by Commander Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.

H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks.

See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.

CLERGY, Benefit of.

See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

CLERGY RESERVES.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837.

CLERMONT.

See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

CLERMONT, The Council of.

Speech of Pope Urban.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

CLERUCHI.

See KLERUCHS.

CLEVELAND, Grover: First Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.

Second Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CLEVELAND:

The founding and naming of the City (1796).

See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CLICHY CLUB. CLICHYANS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLIENTES, Roman.

"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the breaking up of such households, there further belonged the dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon in law as the property of the household and not as members of it, but those individuals who, while they were not free burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them practical freedom. This relation had not properly the character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free, although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: Fustel De Coulanges, The Ancient City, book 4, chapters 1 and 6.

CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

CLINTON, General Sir Henry, and the war of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); 1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1781 (JANUARY).

CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).

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

CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752, to 1757-1772.

{480}

CLOACA MAXIMA OF ROME, The.

"Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city, but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal. This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day moved a knife's breadth from one another … equalling the pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a large and powerful state could have executed it. … Whether the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much may be said, that the structure must have been completed before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and formed a compact whole. … But such a work cannot possibly have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is said to have been in those times."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 5 and 8.

CLODOMIR, King of the Franks, at Orleans, A. D. 511-524.

CLONARD, Monastery of.

A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian, in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 2.

CLONTARF, Battle of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

CLONTARF MEETING, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

CLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1758.

CLOTHAIRE I., King of the Franks, A. D. 511-561.

Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628; (Austrasia), 613-622; Burgundy, 613-628.

Clothaire III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 660-670.

Clothaire IV., King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 717-719.

CLOVIS, King of the Franks, A. D. 481-511.

Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654; (Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.

Clovis III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 691-695.

CLUBS, Ancient Greek.

See LESCHE, HETÆRIES, ERANI and THIASI.

CLUBS: The Beef Steak.

"In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich, a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it, which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again, bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr. Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th Century, chapter 6 (volume 1).

CLUBS: The Brothers'.

In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society … continued for some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury, Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery, Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond, Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John, Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."

G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke, volume 1, chapter 10.

CLUBS: The Clichy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLUBS: The French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CLUBS: The Hampden.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

CLUBS: Dr. Johnson's.

"During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's biography of him. … The next club with which Johnson became acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho. {481} 'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick, when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring. The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont, Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St. James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th Century, chapter 6 (volume 1).

CLUBS: The King's Head.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

CLUBS: The Kit Cat. "The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and the Earl and his friends were less regular in their attendance. … The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook [Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the suppers of the club."

G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke, volume 1, chapter 10, foot-note.

ALSO IN: J. Timbs, Clubs and Club Life in London, pages 47-53.

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th century, chapter 6.

CLUBS: The Mohocks.

See MOHOCKS.

CLUBS: The October and the March.

"The October Club came first into importance in the latest years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster, to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St. John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism of the parent body, but lost all its importance."

J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th century, chapter 6.

CLUBMEN.

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

CLUGNY, OR CLUNY, The Monastery of.

The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D. 910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to reorganize the Western world under a single head, the discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else; fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall. But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy, which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their worst, there were silently training there the men who should inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand, afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule, acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand houses in the middle of the twelfth century—these mostly in France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny, being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in Christendom."

R. C, Trench, Lectures on Mediæval Church History, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, chapters 18-26.

A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory, VII. book 1.

S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, chapter 3, section 8.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 3, number 4.

CLUNIAC MONKS.

See CLUGNY.

CLUSIUM, Battle of (B. C. 83).

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

CLYPEUS, The.

The round iron shield of the Romans.

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 107.

CNOSSUS.

See CRETE.

CNUT.

See CANUTE.

CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

COAHUILTECAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.

COAJIRO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783; and 1783-1787.

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.

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

{482}

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON: GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST), and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

COBBLER'S LEAGUE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

COBDEN, Richard, and the Free Trade movement.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846; and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBDEN-CHEVALIER COMMERCIAL TREATY, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBURG, Origination of the Dukedom of.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

COCCIUM.

An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are supposed to be found at Ribchester.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

COCHIBO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCHIQUIMA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCO TRIBES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

COCONOONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

COCOSATES, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1602. Named by Bartholomew Gosnold.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1605. Called Cap Blanc by Champlain.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1609. Named New Holland by Hudson.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

—————COD, Cape: End—————

CODE NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

CODES.

See LAWS, &c.

CODS, The.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354; and 1482-1493.

CŒLE-SYRIA.

"Hollow Syria"—the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable, or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia, chapter 1.

CŒNOBIUM. CŒNOBITES.

"The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus. 'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk, Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds, 'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"

I. G. Smith, Christian Monasticism, page 40.

ALSO IN: J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church, book 7, chapter 2, section 3.

COFAN, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

See GENS, ROMAN.

COHORTS.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

COIMBRA: Early history.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

COLBERT, The System of. Colbertism.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).

Also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

COLCHESTER, Origin of.

When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an "oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince, Cunobelin,—the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present, in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but the colonial character of the town caused it to be called Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,—abbreviated, in time, to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important Roman town.

C. L. Cutts, Colchester, chapters 1-6.

COLCHESTER: A. D. 1648. The Roundhead siege and capture.

On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and held out against their besiegers from June until late in August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance, Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax, excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton, made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the last moment.

F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution, book 8.

ALSO IN: C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapters 26-27.

—————COLCHESTER: End—————

COLCHIANS, The.

"The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. … Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian mountains) on the south. … The most interesting question connected with the Colchians is that connected with their nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. … Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants from India is entitled to some share of our attention. … If the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the country."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, appendix. 1.

See, also, ALARODIANS.

{483}

COLD HARBOR, First and second battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA), and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

COLDEN, Cadwallader, The lieutenant-governorship of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774 to 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

COLIGNY, Admiral de, The religious wars in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563 to 1572.

American Colonies.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, 1564-1565, and 1565.

COLLAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

COLLEGIA.

Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to have had a political character, although the political clubs were more commonly called "sodalitates."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 11.

COLLINE GATE, D'HERBOIS Battle of the (B. C. 83).

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

COLLOT, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

COLMAR, Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

COLMAR, Battle of (1674).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

COLOGNE: Origin.

See COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

COLOGNE: The Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

COLOGNE: In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

—————COLOGNE: End—————

COLOMAN.

See KOLOMAN.

COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, OR BORNY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

COLOMBIA, United States of.

See COLOMBIAN STATES.

COLOMBIAN STATES, The.

This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover, for considerable periods of their history, the territory now divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these countries being for a long time substantially identical in the main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily, under one heading, until the several currents of events part company distinctly.

COLOMBIAN STATES: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHA.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731. The Spanish conquest of New Granada. Creation of the new vice-royalty.

"For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to have it almost all their own way. … Lying behind these extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region, comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15° of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar, entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April 1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles, enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations that human nature could support. … When he had surmounted the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537, he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission. At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of the chiefs. … In any case, the chief was taken, and, after much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at 6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the temple were utterly destroyed. … On the 9th of August, 1538, was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160 soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito. This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native followers." {484} In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit, exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez, forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact, comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In 1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas, Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at Caracas in Venezuela."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 2, chapter 9.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819. The struggle for independence and its achievement. Miranda and Simon Bolivar. The Earthquake in Venezuela. The founding of the Republic of Colombia.

"The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of South American independence. … The Colombian States were first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas. Besides, there was here constant communication with the West Indies; and government, population and wealth were less centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain (1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population, both red and white. … The French Revolution, coming soon afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. … In Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. … The conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the movement. … It was from Trinidad that the first attempts were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution. Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas, and when a young man had held a French commission in the American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in 1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again attached himself to the French service. … Being proscribed by the Directory, he turned to England, and … when the war [between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500 men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people. His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe, Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the Viceroyalty … and the fortune of the patriot party in new Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation, determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of blockade, as the British government had done in the previous generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston, this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of war. … A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada soon followed. … The powers of nature seemed to conspire with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas] and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde, now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans. Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake. Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery. {485} On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon, as Toussaint had perished a few years before. … Monteverde emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which still maintained its independence, and entered into the service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of Caraccas. … Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States. When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death ('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813, he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello being now the only one in the possession of the royalists. Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to anything but a military government, and vested the supreme power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves, and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the royalists. … The War of Independence had been undertaken against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government persisted in its course of absolute repression. … New Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off Carthagena, its principal port. … Carthagena was only provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered; 5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of affairs changed. … His successes in the year 1817 were sure, though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of Spain."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: C. S. Cochrane, Journal of a Residence in Colombia, volume 1, chapters 6-8.

H. Brownell, North and South America Illustrated, pages 316-334.

C. Cushing, Simon Bolivar (North American Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830).

H. L. V. D. Holstein, Memoirs of Bolivar, chapters 3-20.

Major Flintner, History of the Revolution of Caraccas.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830. The glory and the fall of Bolivar. Dissolution of the Colombian Federation. Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.

Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821, decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of Colombia."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, chapter 5).

"The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were imitated from the American political system, some from the English, some from the French. … Bolivar of course became President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo, in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July, 1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December. {486} All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set free … to render important services to the rest of South America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty, he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the moment when his military triumphs were complete. The disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and 1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar … had now become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt, with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution, so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed. Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. … At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828. … The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables, followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph of Bolivar was only ephemeral. … The Federation was gone: and it became a question of securing military rule in the separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees, it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. … This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December 17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens. Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers, were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.

"About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following remarkable passages occur, which have never before been published in the English language: 'I have been in power for nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3. The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4. This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty tyrants of all colors and races.'"

F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: J. M. Spence, The Land of Bolivar, volume 1, chapter 7.

E. B. Eastwick, Venezuela, chapter 11 (Battle of Carabobo).

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854. Emancipation of slaves.

The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves, born after its publication in the principal cities of the republic, should be free. … Certain revenues were appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each district. … Aside from a certain bungling looseness with which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since completed by the three republics which then constituted Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was reached in 1854.

F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans, pages 330-333.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826. The Congress of Panama.

"The proposition for assembling this body emanated from Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state. {487} This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the political history of the world by originating a purer system of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape, it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for its main object to combine the revolutionized states against the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of events, began to change its complexion. The United States were invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an American policy, and a rallying point for American interests, in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions which are so familiar to all, the government of the United States accepted the invitation, and despatched its representatives to Panama. … In the interval, between the proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union, league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents which the confederates should contribute for the common defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand scheme of ambition,—ascribed to him by the republican party, and not without some countenance from his own conduct,—for establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the projected assembly, the United States were invited to be represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."