[Transcriber's note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected, allother inconsistencies are as in the original. The author's spelling hasbeen maintained. 

Page 492: A probable typographical error "Camide, Desmoulins" has beenreplaced by "Camille Desmoulin". 

The following sentences had illegible words; inserted words are shownhere between "=". 

Page 82: "and his mother, Catharine, became virtually the =ruler= ofthe nation. "

Page 178: "The minority had now become a majority, "--which is notunusual in revolutionary times, --and proceeded to the work, in goodearnest, which =he= had long contemplated. 

Page 487: All classes in France were anxious for it, and =war= wassoon declared. ]

 A MODERN HISTORY, FROM THE TIME OF LUTHER TO THE FALL OF NAPOLEON. 

 FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. 

 BY JOHN LORD, A. M. , LECTURER ON HISTORY. 

 PHILADELPHIA: CHARLES DESILVER; CLAXTON, REMSEN & HAFFELFINGER; J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON & Co. BOSTON: NICHOLS & HALL. CINCINNATI: ROBERT CLARKE & Co; WILSON, HINKLE & Co. SAN FRANCISCO: A. L. BANCROFT & Co. 

 _Chicago_: S. C. GRIGGS & Co. --_Charleston, S. C. _: J. M. Greer & Son; Edward Perry & Son. --_Raleigh, N. C. _: Williams & Lambeth. --_Baltimore, Md. _: Cushings & Bailey; W. J. C Dulaney & Co. --_New Orleans, La. _: Stevens & Seymour. --_Savannah, Ga. _: J. M. Cooper & Co. --_Macon, Ga. _: J. M. Boardman. --_Augusta, Ga. _: Thos. Richards & Son. --_Richmond, Va. _: Woodhouse & Parham. 

 1874. 

 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849, by JOHN LORD, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

PREFACE. 

In preparing this History, I make no claim to original and profoundinvestigations; but the arrangement, the style, and the sentiments, are my own. I have simply attempted to condense the great and variedsubjects which are presented, so as to furnish a connected narrativeof what is most vital in the history of the last three hundred years, avoiding both minute details and elaborate disquisitions. It has beenmy aim to write a book, which should be neither a chronological tablenor a philosophical treatise, but a work adapted to the wants of youngpeople in the various stages of education, and which, it is hoped, will also prove interesting to those of maturer age; who have not theleisure to read extensive works, and yet who wish to understand theconnection of great events since the Protestant Reformation. Thosecharacters, institutions, reforms, and agitations, which have had thegreatest influence in advancing society, only have been described, andthese not to the extent which will satisfy the learned or the curious. Dates and names, battles and sieges, have not been disregarded; butmore attention has been given to those ideas and to those men by whoseinfluence and agency great changes have taken place. In a work solimited, and yet so varied, marginal references to originalauthorities have not been deemed necessary; but a list of standard andaccessible authors is furnished, at the close of each chapter, whichthe young student, seeking more minute information, can easilyconsult. A continuation of this History to the present time might seemdesirable; but it would be difficult to condense the complicatedevents of the last thirty years into less than another volume. Insteadof an unsatisfactory compend, especially of subjects concerning whichthere are great differences of opinion, and considerable warmth offeeling, useful tables of important events are furnished in theAppendix. I have only to add, that if I have succeeded in remedying, in some measure, the defects of those dry compendiums, which are usedfor want of living histories; if I have combined what is instructivewith what is entertaining; and especially if I shall impress thecommon mind, even to a feeble degree, with those great moral truthswhich history ought to teach, I shall feel that my agreeable labor isnot without its reward. 

 J. L. 

 BOSTON, _October, 1849_. 

CONTENTS. 

 CHAPTER I. 

 STATE OF EUROPEAN SOCIETY IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES. (pp. 1-9. )

Revival of the Arts -- Influence of Feudalism -- Effects ofScholasticism -- Ecclesiastical Corruptions -- Papal Infallibility --The sale of Indulgences -- The Corruptions of the Church -- Necessityfor Reform. 

 CHAPTER II. 

 MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ASSOCIATES. (pp. 10-29. )

The Early Life of Luther -- Luther's Early Religious Struggles -- TheNinety-Five Propositions -- Erasmus -- Melancthon -- Leo X. -- TheLeipsic Disputation -- Principles of the Leipsic Disputation -- TheRights of Private Judgment -- Luther's Elements of Greatness --Excommunication of Luther -- The Diet of Worms -- Imprisonment atWartburg -- Carlstadt -- Thomas Münzer Ulric -- Zwingle -- Controversybetween Luther and Zwingle -- Diet of Augsburg -- League of Smalcalde-- Death and Character of Luther. 

 CHAPTER III. 

 THE EMPEROR CHARLES V. (pp. 30-44. )

Charles V. -- Spain and France in the Fifteenth Century -- Warsbetween Charles and Francis. -- Diet of Spires -- Hostilities betweenCharles and Francis -- African War -- Council of Trent -- Treachery ofMaurice -- Captivity of the Landgrave of Hesse -- Heroism of Maurice-- Misfortunes of Charles -- Treaty of Passau -- Character of Charles. 

 CHAPTER IV. 

 HENRY VIII. (pp. 45-59. )

Rise of Absolute Monarchy -- Henry VIII. -- Rise of Cardinal Wolsey --Magnificence of Henry VIII. -- Anne Boleyn -- Queen Catharine --Disgrace and Death of Wolsey -- More -- Cranmer -- Cromwell -- Quarrelwith the Pope -- Suppression of Monasteries -- Execution of AnneBoleyn -- Anne of Cleves -- Catharine Howard -- Last Days of Henry --Death of Henry. 

 CHAPTER V. 

 EDWARD VI. AND MARY. (pp. 60-68. )

War with Scotland -- Rebellions and Discontents -- Rivalry of thegreat Nobles -- Religious Reforms -- Execution of Northumberland --Marriage of the Queen -- Religious Persecution -- Character of Mary --Accession of Elizabeth. 

 CHAPTER VI. 

 ELIZABETH. (pp. 69-81. )

Mary, Queen of Scots -- John Knox -- Marriage of Mary -- Darnley --Bothwell -- Civil War in Scotland -- Captivity of Queen Mary --Execution of Mary -- Military Preparations of Philip II. -- SpanishArmada -- Irish Rebellion -- The Earl of Essex -- Character ofElizabeth -- Improvements made in the Reign of Elizabeth --Reflections. 

 CHAPTER VII. 

 FRANCIS II. , CHARLES IX. , HENRY III. , AND HENRY IV. (pp. 82-90. )

Catharine de Medicis -- Civil War in France -- Massacre of St. Bartholomew -- Henry III. -- Henry IV. -- Edict of Nantes --Improvements during the Reign of Henry IV. -- Peace Scheme ofHenry IV. -- Death of Henry IV. -- France at the Death of Henry IV. 

 CHAPTER VIII. 

 PHILIP II. AND THE AUSTRIAN PRINCES OF SPAIN. (pp. 91-96. )

Bigotry of Philip II. -- Revolt of the Netherlands -- Revolt of theMoriscoes -- Causes of the Decline of the Spanish Monarchy -- TheIncrease of Gold and Silver -- Decline of the Spanish Monarchy. 

 CHAPTER IX. 

 THE JESUITS, AND THE PAPAL POWER IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. (pp. 97-107. )

The Roman Power in the Seventeenth Century -- Rise of the Jesuits --Rapid Spread of the Jesuits -- Extraordinary Virtues of the olderJesuits -- The Constitution of the Jesuits -- Degeneracy of theJesuits -- Evils in the Jesuit System -- The Popes in the SeventeenthCentury -- Nepotism of the Popes -- Rome in the Seventeenth Century. 

 CHAPTER X. 

 THIRTY YEARS' WAR. (pp. 108-119. )

Political Troubles after the Death of Luther -- Diet of Augsburg --Commencement of the Thirty Years' War -- The Emperor Frederic -- CountWallenstein -- Character of Wallenstein -- Gustavus Adolphus -- Lossof Magdeburg -- Wallenstein reinstated in Power -- Death of GustavusAdolphus -- Assassination of Wallenstein -- Treaty of Westphalia. 

 CHAPTER XI. 

 ADMINISTRATIONS OF CARDINALS RICHELIEU AND MAZARIN. (pp. 120-132. )

Regency of Mary de Medicis -- Rise of Cardinal de Richelieu --Suppression of the Huguenots -- The Depression of the great Nobles --Power of Richelieu -- Character of Richelieu -- Effects of Richelieu'sPolicy -- Richelieu's Policy -- Cardinal de Retz -- Prince of Condé --Power of Mazarin -- Death of Mazarin. 

 CHAPTER XII. 

 THE REIGNS OF JAMES I. AND CHARLES. (pp. 133-180. )

Accession of James I. -- The Genius of the Reign of James --Conspiracy of Sir Walter Raleigh -- Gunpowder Plot -- Persecution ofthe Catholics -- Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset -- Greatness and Fallof Somerset -- Duke of Buckingham -- Lord Bacon -- Trial and Executionof Raleigh -- Encroachments of James -- Quarrel between James andParliament -- Death of James -- The Struggle of Classes -- Rise ofPopular Power -- Quarrel between the King and the Commons -- TheCounsellors of Charles -- Death of Buckingham -- Petition of Right --Earl of Strafford -- John Hampden -- Insurrection in Scotland -- LongParliament -- Rebellion of Ireland -- Flight of the King from London-- Rise of the Puritans -- Original Difficulties and Differences --Persecution during the Reign of Elizabeth -- Archbishops Grindal andWhitgift -- Persecution under James -- Puritans in Exile -- Troublesin Scotland -- Peculiarities of Puritanism in England -- Conflictsamong the Puritans -- Character of the Puritans -- John Hampden --Oliver Cromwell -- The King at Oxford -- Cromwell after the Battle ofMarston Moor -- Enthusiasm of the Independents -- Battle of Naseby --Success of the Parliamentary Army -- Seizure of the King -- Triumph ofthe Independents -- Cromwell invades Scotland -- Seizure of the King asecond Time -- Trial of the King. 

 CHAPTER XIII. 

 PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL. (pp. 181-191. )

Storming of Drogheda and Wexford -- Battle of Worcester -- Policy ofCromwell -- The Rump Parliament -- Dispersion of the ParliamentCromwell assumes the Protectorship -- The Dutch War -- Cromwell ruleswithout a Parliament -- The Protectorate -- Regal Government restored. 

 CHAPTER XIV. 

 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. (pp. 192-210. )

The Restoration -- Great Public Rejoicings -- Reaction toRevolutionary Principles -- Excellencies in Charles's Government --Failure of the Puritan Experiment -- Repeal of the Triennial Bill --Secret Alliance with Louis XIV. -- Venality and Sycophancy ofParliament -- Restrictions on the Press -- Habeas Corpus Act -- TitusOates -- Oates's Revelations -- Penal Laws against Catholics --Persecution of Dissenters -- Execution of Russell and Sydney --Manners and Customs of England -- Milton -- Dryden -- Condition of thePeople of England. 

 CHAPTER XV. 

 THE REIGN OF JAMES II. (pp. 211-233. )

Accession of James II. -- Monmouth lands in England -- Battle ofSedgemoor -- Death of Monmouth -- Brutality of Jeffreys -- Persecutionof the Dissenters -- George Fox -- Persecution of the Quakers --Despotic Power of James -- Favor extended to Catholics -- HighCommission Court -- Quarrel with the Universities -- Magdalen College-- Prosecution of the Seven Bishops -- Tyranny and infatuation ofJames -- Organized Opposition -- William, Prince of Orange -- Criticalcondition of James -- Invasion of England by William -- Flight of theKing -- Consummation of the Revolution -- Declaration of Rights. 

 CHAPTER XVI. 

 LOUIS XIV. (pp. 234-251. )

The Power and Resources of Louis -- His Habits and Pleasures -- HisMilitary Ambition -- William, Prince of Orange -- Second Invasion ofHolland -- Dutch War -- Madame de Montespan -- Madame de Maintenon --League of Augsburg -- Opposing Armies and Generals -- War of theSpanish Succession -- Duke of Marlborough -- Battle of Blenheim --Exertions and Necessities of Louis -- Treaty of Utrecht -- Last Daysof Louis -- His Character. 

 CHAPTER XVII. 

 WILLIAM AND MARY. (pp. 252-270. )

Irish Rebellion -- King James in Ireland -- Freedom of the Press --Act of Settlement -- Death of William III. -- Character of William --Sir Isaac Newton and John Locke -- Anne -- The Duke of Marlborough --Character of Marlborough -- Whigs and Tories -- Dr. Henry Sacheverell-- Union of Scotland and England -- Duke of Hamilton -- Wits of QueenAnne's Reign -- Swift -- Pope -- Bolingbroke -- Gay -- Prior --Writers of the Age of Queen Anne. 

 CHAPTER XVIII. 

 PETER THE GREAT, AND RUSSIA. (pp. 271-289. )

Early History of Russia -- The Tartar Conquest -- Accession of Peterthe Great -- Peter's Reforms -- His War with Charles XII. --Charles XII. -- Building of St. Petersburg -- New War with Sweden --War with the Turks -- Peter makes a second Tour -- Elevation ofCatharine -- Early History of Sweden -- Introduction of Christianity-- Gustavus Vasa -- Early Days of Charles XII -- Charles's Heroism --His Misfortunes -- His Return to Sweden -- His Death. 

 CHAPTER XIX. 

 GEORGE I. , AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE. (pp. 290-309. )

Accession of George I. -- Sir Robert Walpole -- The Pretender --Invasion of Scotland -- The South Sea Bubble -- The South Sea Company-- Opposition of Walpole -- Mania for Speculation -- Bursting of theSouth Sea Bubble -- Enlightened policy of Walpole -- East IndiaCompany -- Resignation of Townshend -- Unpopularity of Walpole --Decline of his power -- John Wesley -- Early life of Wesley --Whitefield -- Institution of Wesley -- Itinerancy -- Great influenceand power of Wesley. 

 CHAPTER XX. 

 THE COLONIZATION OF AMERICA AND THE EAST INDIES. (pp. 310-341. )

Commercial Enterprise -- Spanish Conquests and Settlements --Portuguese Discoveries -- Portuguese Settlements -- Early EnglishEnterprise -- Sir Walter Raleigh -- London Company incorporated --Hardships of the Virginia Colony -- New Charter of the London Company-- Rapid Colonization -- Indian Warfare -- Governor Harvey --Arbitrary Policy of Charles II. -- Settlement of New England --Arrival of the Mayflower -- Settlement of New Hampshire --Constitution of the Colony -- Doctrines of the Puritans -- Pequod War-- Union of the New England Colonies -- William Penn -- Settlement ofNew York -- Conquest of New Netherlands -- Discovery of the St. Lawrence -- Jesuit Missionaries -- Prosperity of the English Colonies-- French Encroachments -- European Settlements in the East -- FrenchSettlements in India -- La Bourdonnais and Dupleix -- Clive'sVictories -- Conquest of India. 

 CHAPTER XXI. 

 THE REIGN OF GEORGE II. (pp. 342-359. )

The Pelhams -- The Pretender Charles Edward Stuart -- Surrender ofEdinburgh -- Success of the Pretender -- The Retreat of the Pretender-- Battle of Culloden -- Latter Days of the Pretender -- Maria Theresa-- Capture of Louisburg -- Great Colonial Contest -- Character of theDuke of Newcastle -- Unpopularity of the Pelhams -- Rise of WilliamPitt -- Brilliant Military Successes -- Military Successes in America-- Victories of Clive in India -- Resignation of Pitt -- Peace ofParis. 

 CHAPTER XXII. 

 LOUIS XV. (pp. 360-379. )

Regency of the Duke of Orleans -- John Law -- Mississippi Company --Popular Delusion -- Fatal Effects of the Delusion -- Administration ofCardinal Fleury -- Cornelius Jansen -- St. Cyran -- Arnauld -- LeMaitre -- The Labors of the Port Royalists -- Principles of Jansenism-- Functions of the Parliament -- The Bull Unigenitus -- Madame dePompadour -- The Jesuits -- Exposure of the Jesuits -- Their Expulsionfrom France -- Suppression in Spain -- Pope Clement XIV. -- Death ofGanganelli -- Death of Louis XV. 

 CHAPTER XXIII. 

 FREDERIC THE GREAT. (pp. 380-390. )

Frederic William -- Accession of Frederic the Great -- The SevenYears' War -- Battle of Rossbach -- Battle of Leuthen -- Fall ofDresden -- Reverses of Frederic -- Continued Disasters -- Exhaustionof Prussia by the War -- Death of Frederic -- Character of Frederic. 

 CHAPTER XXIV. 

 MARIA THERESA AND CATHARINE II. (pp. 391-401. )

The Germanic Constitution -- The Hungarian War -- The Emperor Joseph-- Accession of Maria Theresa -- She institutes Reforms -- Successorsof Peter the Great -- Murder of Peter III. -- Assassination, of Ivan-- Death of Catharine -- Her Character. 

 CHAPTER XXV. 

 CALAMITIES OF POLAND. (pp. 402-408. )

The Crown of Poland made elective -- Election of Henry, Duke of Anjou-- Sobieski assists the Emperor Leopold -- The Liberum Veto -- TheFall of Poland. 

 CHAPTER XXVI. 

 THE DECLINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. (pp. 409-415. )

Saracenic Empire -- Rise of the Turks -- Turkish Conquerors --Progress of the Turks -- Decline of Turkish Power -- TurkishInstitutions -- Turkish Character. 

 CHAPTER XXVII. 

 REIGN OF GEORGE III. TO ADMINISTRATION OF WILLIAM PITT. (pp. 416-431. )

Military Successes in America -- Prosecution of Wilkes -- Churchill --Grafton's Administration -- Popularity of Wilkes -- Taxation of theColonies -- Indignation of the Colonies -- Functions of the Parliament-- The Stamp Act -- Lord Chatham -- Administration of Lord North --Irish Discontents -- Protestant Association -- Lord George Gordon'sRiots -- Parliamentary Reforms. 

 CHAPTER XXVIII. 

 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. (pp. 432-449. )

Causes of the Revolution -- Riots and Disturbances -- Duty on Tea --Port of Boston closed -- Meeting of Congress -- Speech of Burke --Battle of Bunker Hill -- Death of Montgomery -- Declaration ofAmerican Independence -- Commissioners sent to France -- Capture ofBurgoyne -- Moral Effects of Burgoyne's Capture -- Arrival of LaFayette -- Evacuation of Philadelphia -- The Treason of Arnold --Surrender of Lord Cornwallis -- Resignation of Lord North. 

 CHAPTER XXIX. 

 ADMINISTRATION OF WILLIAM PITT. (pp. 450-470. )

William Pitt -- Early Life of Pitt -- Policy of Pitt -- Difficultieswith Ireland -- The United Irishmen -- Union of England and Ireland --Condition of Ireland -- Parliamentary Reform -- Warren Hastings -- Warwith Hyder Ali -- Robbery of the Princesses of Oude -- Prosecution ofHastings -- Edmund Burke -- Charles James Fox -- Richard BrinsleySheridan -- Bill for the Regulation of India -- War with Tippoo Saib-- Conquest of India -- Consequences of the Conquest -- War withFrance -- Policy of Pitt. 

 CHAPTER XXX. 

 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. (pp. 471-495. )

Causes of the French Revolution -- Helvetius -- Voltaire -- Rousseau-- Diderot -- General Influence of the Philosophers -- Sufferings ofthe People -- Degradation of the People -- Derangement of Finances --Maurepas -- Turgot -- Malesherbes -- Necker -- Calonne -- StatesGeneral -- The Tiers État -- Commotions -- Rule of the People --National Federation -- Flight of the King -- The Girondists and theJacobins -- The National Convention -- Marat -- Danton -- Robespierre-- General War -- Reign of Terror -- Death of Robespierre -- NewConstitution -- The Directory. 

 CHAPTER XXXI. 

 NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. (pp. 496-526. )

Character of Bonaparte -- Early Days of Bonaparte -- Early Services tothe Republic -- The Italian Campaign -- Battle of Cape St. Vincent --Conquest of Venice by Bonaparte -- Invasion of Egypt -- Siege ofAcre -- Reverses of the French -- Bonaparte First Consul -- ImmenseMilitary Preparations -- The Reforms of Bonaparte -- The Code Napoléon-- Bonaparte becomes Emperor of the French -- Meditated Invasion ofEngland -- Battle of Austerlitz -- Battle of Jena -- Bonaparteaggrandizes France -- Aggrandizement of Bonaparte's Family -- ThePeninsular War -- Invasion of Russia -- Battle of Smolensko -- Retreatof the French -- Battles of Lutzen and Bautzen -- Battle of Leipsic --The Allied Powers invade France -- Peace of Paris -- Bonaparte escapesfrom Elba -- Battle of Waterloo -- Reflections on Napoleon's Fall. 

 CHAPTER XXXII. 

 EUROPE ON THE FALL OF NAPOLEON. (pp. 527-532. )

Remarkable Men of Genius -- Condition of Germany -- Condition of otherPowers -- The United States of America. 

 APPENDIX. 

 Chronological Table, from the Fall of Napoleon, 533 Prime Ministers of England, from the Accession of Henry VIII. , 538 Table of the Monarchy of Europe, during the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries, 541 Genealogical Table of the Royal Family of England, 543 Genealogical Table of the Bourbons, 544

MODERN HISTORY. 

CHAPTER I. 

STATE OF EUROPEAN SOCIETY IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES. 

The period at which this History commences, --the beginning of thesixteenth century, --when compared with the ages which had preceded it, since the fall of the Roman empire, was one of unprecedentedbrilliancy and activity. It was a period very fruitful in great menand great events, and, though stormy and turbulent, was favorable toexperiments and reforms. The nations of Europe seem to have beensuddenly aroused from a state of torpor and rest, and to have putforth new energies in every department of life. The material and thepolitical, the moral and the social condition of society was subjectto powerful agitations, and passed through important changes. 

Great _discoveries and inventions_ had been made. The use of movabletypes, first ascribed to a German, of Mentz, by the name of Gutenberg, in 1441, and to Peter Schoeffer, in 1444, changed the whole system ofbook-making, and vastly increased the circulation of the Scriptures, the Greek and Latin classics, and all other valuable works, which, bythe industry of the monkish copyist, had been preserved from theravages of time and barbarism. Gunpowder, whose explosive power hadbeen perceived by Roger Bacon as early as 1280, though it was not usedon the field of battle until 1346, had completely changed the art ofwar and had greatly contributed to undermine the feudal system. Thepolarity of the magnet, also discovered in the middle ages, and notpractically applied to the mariner's compass until 1403, had led tothe greatest event of the fifteenth century--the discovery of Americaby Christopher Columbus, in 1492. The impulse given to commerce bythis and other discoveries of unknown continents and oceans, by thePortuguese, the Spaniards, the Dutch, the English, and the French, cannot be here enlarged on. America revealed to the astonishedEuropean her riches in gold and silver; and Indian spices, and silks, and drugs, were imported, through new channels, into all the countriesinhabited by the Teutonic races. Mercantile wealth, with all itsrefinements, acquired new importance in the eyes of the nations. Theworld opened towards the east and the west. The horizon of knowledgeextended. Popular delusions were dispelled. Liberality of mind wasacquired. The material prosperity of the western nations wasincreased. Tastes became more refined, and social intercourse morecheerful. 

[Sidenote: Revival of the Arts. ]

Art, in all its departments, was every where revived at this epoch. Houses became more comfortable, and churches more splendid. Theutensils of husbandry and of cookery were improved. Linen and woollenmanufactures supplanted the coarser fabrics of the dark ages. Musicbecame more elaborate, and the present system of notation was adopted. The genius of the sculptor again gave life and beauty to a marbleblock, and painting was carried to greater perfection than by theancient Greeks and Romans. Florence, Venice, Milan, and Rome becameseats of various schools of this beautiful art, of which MichaelAngelo, Correggio, the Carracci, and Raphael were the most celebratedmasters, all of whom were distinguished for peculiar excellences, never since surpassed, or even equalled. The Flemish artists werescarcely behind the Italian; and Rubens, of Antwerp, may well rankwith Correggio and Titian. To Raphael, however, the world has, as yet, furnished no parallel. 

[Sidenote: Influence of Feudalism. ]

_The political and social structure_ of society changed. The crusades, long before, had given a shock to the political importance of thefeudal aristocracy, and reviving commerce and art had shaken thesystem to its foundations. The Flemish weavers had arisen, and amercantile class had clamored for new privileges. In the struggle ofclasses, and in the misfortunes of nobles, monarchs had perceived theadvantages they might gain, and fortunate circumstances enabled themto raise absolute thrones, and restore a central power, always sonecessary to the cause of civilization. Feudalism had answered manyuseful ends in the dark ages. It had secured a reciprocity of dutiesbetween a lord and his vassal; it had restored loyalty, truth, andfidelity among semi-barbarians; it had favored the cultivation of thesoil; it had raised up a hardy rural population; it had promotedchivalry, and had introduced into Europe the modern gentleman; it hadennobled friendship, and spread the graces of urbanity and gentlenessamong rough and turbulent warriors. But it had, also, like all humaninstitutions, become corrupt, and failed to answer the ends for whichit was instituted. It had become an oppressive social despotism; ithad widened the distinction between the noble and ignoble classes; ithad produced selfishness and arrogance among the nobles, and a meanand cringing sycophancy among the people; it had perpetuatedprivileges, among the aristocracy, exceedingly unjust, and ruinous tothe general welfare of society. It therefore fell before the advancingspirit of the age, and monarchies and republics were erected on itsruins. The people, as well as monarchs, had learned the secret oftheir power. They learned that, by combining their power, they couldsuccessfully resist their enemies. The principle of association waslearned. Combinations of masses took place. Free cities weremultiplied. A population of artificers, and small merchants, and freefarmers arose. They discussed their privileges, and asserted theirindependence. Political liberty was born, and its invaluable blessingswere conceived, if they were not realized. 

[Sidenote: Effects of Scholasticism. ]

_And the intellectual state_ of Europe received an impulse as markedand beneficent as the physical and social. The scholastic philosophy, with its dry and technical logic, its abstruse formulas, and itssubtle refinements, ceased to satisfy the wants of the human mind, nowcraving light and absolute knowledge in all departments of science andphilosophy. Like feudalism, it had once been useful; but like thatinstitution, it had also become corrupted, and an object of sarcasmand mockery. It had trained the European mind for the discoveries ofthe sixteenth century; it had raised up an inquisitive spirit, and hadled to profound reflections on the existence of God, on his attributesand will, on the nature of the soul, on the faculties of the mind andon the practical duties of life. But this philosophy became pedanticand cold; covered, as with a funereal shade, the higher pursuits oflife; and diverted attention from what was practical and useful. Thatearnest spirit, which raised up Luther and Bacon, demanded, of thegreat masters of thought, something which the people could understand, and something which would do them good. 

In poetry, the insipid and immoral songs of the Provençal bards gaveplace to the immortal productions of the great creators of theEuropean languages. Dante led the way in Italy, and gave to the worldthe "Divine Comedy"--a masterpiece of human genius, which raised himto the rank of Homer and Virgil. Petrarch followed in his steps, and, if not as profound or original as Dante, yet is unequalled as an"enthusiastic songster of ideal love. " He also gave a great impulse tocivilization by his labors in collecting and collating manuscripts. Boccaccio also lent his aid in the revival of literature, and wrote aseries of witty, though objectionable stories, from which the EnglishChaucer borrowed the notion of his "Canterbury Tales. " Chaucer is thefather of English poetry, and kindled a love of literature among hisisolated countrymen; and was one of the few men who, in the evening ofhis days, looked upon the world without austerity, and expressedhimself with all the vivacity of youthful feeling. 

[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical Corruptions. ]

Such were some of the leading events and circumstances which gave anew life to European society, and created a desire for better days. All of these causes of improvement acted and reacted on each other invarious ways, and prepared the way to new and great developments ofaction and passion. These new energies were, however, unfortunatelychecked by a combination of evils which had arisen in the dark ages, and which required to be subverted before any great progress could bereasonably expected. These evils were most remarkable in the churchitself and almost extinguished the light which Christ and his apostleshad kindled. The church looked with an evil eye on many of thegreatest improvements and agitations of the age, and attempted tosuppress the spirit of insurrection which had arisen against theabuses and follies of past ages. Great ideas were ridiculed, anddaring spirits were crushed. There were many good men in the churchwho saw and who lamented prevailing corruptions, but their voice wasoverwhelmed by the clamors of interested partisans, or silenced by theauthority of the popes. The character of the popes themselves was notwhat was expected of the heads of the visible church, or what wasfrequently exhibited in those ignorant and superstitious times, whenthe papacy fulfilled, in the opinion of many enlightened Protestants, a benevolent mission. None had the disinterestedness of Gregory I. , orthe talents of Gregory VII. There had been a time when the greatcentral spiritual monarchy of Rome had been exercised for the peaceand tranquillity of Europe, when it was uniformly opposed to slaveryand war, and when it was a mild and paternal government, whichprotected innocence and weakness, while it punished injustice andcrime. The time was, when popes had been elevated for their piety andlearning, and when they lived as saints and died as martyrs. But thattime had passed. The Roman church did not keep up with the spirit orthe wants of the age, and moreover did not reform itself from viceswhich had been overlooked in ages of ignorance and superstition. Inthe fifteenth century, many great abuses scandalized a body of men whoshould have been the lights of the world; and the sacred pontiffsthemselves set examples of unusual depravity. Julius II. Marched atthe head of armies. Alexander VI. Secured his election by bribery, andreigned by extortion. He poisoned his own cardinals, and bestowed onhis son Cæsar Borgia--an incarnated demon--the highest dignities andrewards. It was common for the popes to sell the highest offices inthe church for money, to place boys on episcopal thrones, to absolvethe most heinous and scandalous crimes for gold, to encourage themassacre of heretics, and to disgrace themselves by infamous vices. And a general laxity of morals existed among all orders of the clergy. They were ignorant, debauched, and ambitious. The monks wereexceedingly numerous; had ceased to be men of prayer andcontemplation, as in the days of Benedict and Bernard; and might beseen frequenting places of demoralizing excitement, devoted topleasure, and enriched by inglorious gains. 

But the evils which the church encouraged were more dangerous than thevices of its members. These evils were inherent in the papal system, and were hard to be subverted. There were corruptions of doctrine, andcorruptions in the government and customs of the church. 

[Sidenote: Papal Infallibility. ]

There generally prevailed, throughout Christendom, the belief in papalinfallibility, which notion subverted the doctrines of the Bible, andplaced its truths, at least, on a level with the authority of theschoolmen. It favored the various usurpations of the popes, andstrengthened the bonds of spiritual despotism. 

The popes also claimed a control over secular princes, as well as thesupremacy of the church. Hildebrand was content with riveting thechains of universal spiritual authority, the evil and absurdity ofwhich cannot well be exaggerated; but his more ambitious successorssought to reduce the kings of the earth to perfect vassalage, and, when in danger of having their monstrous usurpations torn from them, were ready to fill the world with discord and war. 

But the worldly popes of the fifteenth century also aspired to betemporal princes. They established the most elegant court in Europe;they supported large armies; they sought to restore the splendor ofimperial Rome; they became ambitious of founding great families; theyenriched their nephews and relations at the sacrifice of the bestinterests of their church; they affected great state and dignity; theybuilt gorgeous palaces; they ornamented their capital with picturesand statues. 

The territories of Rome were, however, small. The lawful revenues ofthe popes were insufficient to gratify their extravagance and pomp. But money, nevertheless, they must have. In order to raise it, theyresorted to extortion and corruption. They imposed taxes onChristendom, direct and indirect. These were felt as an intolerableburden; but such was the superstition of the times, that they weresuccessfully raised. But even these were insufficient to gratify papalavarice and rapacity. They then resorted, in their necessities, to themeanest acts, imposed on the simplicity of their subjects, and finallyadopted the most infamous custom which ever disgraced the world. 

[Sidenote: The Sale of Indulgences. ]

They pardoned sins for money--granted sales of indulgences for crime. A regular scale for absolution was graded. A proclamation was madeevery fifty, and finally every twenty-five years, of a year ofjubilee, when plenary remission of all sin was promised to those whoshould make a pilgrimage to Rome. And so great was the influx ofstrangers, and consequently of wealth, to Rome, that, on one occasion, it was collected into piles by rakes. It is computed that two hundredthousand deluded persons visited the city in a single month. But thevast sums they brought to Rome, and the still greater sums which wereobtained by the sale of indulgences, and by various taxations, wereall squandered in ornamenting the city, and in supporting a luxuriouscourt, profligate cardinals, and superfluous ministers of a corruptedreligion. Then was erected the splendid church of St. Peter, moreafter the style of Grecian temples, than after the model of the Gothiccathedrals of York and Cologne. Glorious was that monument of revivingart; wonderful was its lofty dome; but the vast sums required to buildit opened the eyes of Christendom to the extravagance and presumptionof the popes; and this splendid trophy of their glory also became theemblem of their broken power. Their palaces and temples made animposing show, but detracted from their real strength, which consistedin the affections of their spiritual subjects. Their outward grandeur, like the mechanical agencies which kings employ, was but a poorsubstitute for the invisible power of love, --in all ages, and amongall people, "that cheap defence" which supports thrones and kingdoms. 

[Sidenote: The Corruptions of the Church. ]

Another great evil was, the prevalence of an idolatrous spirit. In thechurches and chapels, and even in private families, were innumerableimages of saints, pictures of the Virgin, relics, crucifixes, &c. , designed at first to kindle a spirit of devotion among the rude anduneducated, but gradually becoming objects of real adoration. Intercessions were supposed to be made by the Virgin Mary, and byfavorite saints, more efficacious with Deity than the penitence andprayers of the erring and sinful themselves. The influence of thisveneration for martyrs and saints was degrading to the mind, andbecame a very lucrative source of profit to the priests, who peddledthe bones and relics of saints as they did indulgences, and whoinvented innumerable lies to attest the genuineness and antiquity ofthe objects they sold, all of which were parts of the great system offraud and avarice which the church permitted. 

Again; the public worship of God was in a language the people couldnot understand, but rendered impressive by the gorgeous dresses of thepriests, and the magnificence of the altar, and the images and vesselsof silver and gold, reflecting their splendor, by the light of waxcandles, on the sombre pillars, roofs, and windows of the Gothicchurch, and the effect heightened by exciting music, and other appealsto the taste or imagination, rather than to the reason and the heart. The sermons of the clergy were frivolous, and ill adapted to thespiritual wants of the people. "Men went to the Vatican, " says thelearned and philosophical Ranke, "not to pray, but to contemplate theBelvidere Apollo. They disgraced the most solemn festivals by openprofanations. The clergy, in their services, sought the means ofexciting laughter. One would mock the cuckoo, and another reciteindecent stories about St. Peter. " Luther, when he visited Italy, wasextremely shocked at the infidel spirit which prevailed among theclergy, who were hostile to the circulation of the Scriptures, and whoencouraged persecutions and inquisitions. This was the age when thedreadful tribunal of the Inquisition flourished, although its chiefenormities were perpetrated in Spain and Portugal. It never had anexistence in England, and but little influence in France and Germany. But if the Church did not resort, in all countries, to that dreadtribunal which subjected youth, beauty, and innocence to theinquisitorial vengeance of narrow-minded Dominican monks, still shewas hostile to free inquiry, and to all efforts made to emancipate thereason of men. 

The spirit of religious persecution, which inflamed the Roman Churchto punish all dissenters from the doctrine and abuses she promulgated, can never be questioned. The Waldenses and Albigenses had suffered, indarker times, almost incredible hardships and miseries--had beenalmost annihilated by the dreadful crusade which was carried onagainst them, so that two hundred thousand had perished for supposedheresy. But reference is not now made to this wholesale massacre, butto those instances of individual persecution which showed the extremejealousy and hatred of Rome of all new opinions. John Huss and Jeromeof Prague were publicly burned for attempting to reform the church, and even Savonarola, who did not deny the authority of the popes, wascondemned to the flames for denouncing the vices of his age, ratherthan the evils of the church. 

[Sidenote: Necessity for Reform. ]

These multiplied evils, which checked the spirit of improvement, called loudly for reform. Councils were assembled for the purpose; butcouncils supported, rather than diminished, the evils of which evenprinces complained. The reform was not destined to come fromdignitaries in the church or state; not from bishops, norphilosophers, nor kings, but from an obscure teacher of divinity in aGerman university, whom the genius of a reviving and awakened age hadsummoned into the field of revolutionary warfare. It was reserved forMartin Luther to commence the first successful rebellion against thedespotism of Rome, and to give the greatest impulse to freedom ofthought, and a general spirit of reform, which ten centuries had seen. 

The most prominent event in modern times is unquestionably theProtestant Reformation, and it was by far the most momentous in itsresults. It gave rise, directly or indirectly, to the great wars ofthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as well as to those rivalsects which agitated the theological world. It is connected with theenterprises of great monarchs, with the struggle of the Huguenots andPuritans, with the diffusion of knowledge, and with the progress ofcivil and religious liberty in Europe. An event, therefore, of suchinterest and magnitude, may well be adopted as a starting point inmodern history, and will, accordingly, be the first subject ofespecial notice. History is ever most impressive and philosophicalwhen great changes and revolutions are traced to the agency of greatspiritual ideas. Moreover, modern history is so complicated, that itis difficult to unravel it except by tracing the agency of greatcauses, rather than by detailing the fortunes of kings and nobles. 

CHAPTER II. 

MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS ASSOCIATES. 

[Sidenote: The Early Life of Luther. ]

Martin Luther was born the 10th of November, 1483, at Eisleben, inSaxony. His father was a miner, of Mansfield, and his ancestors werepeasants, who lived near the summit of the Thuringian Forest. Hisearly years were spent at Mansfield, in extreme poverty, and he earnedhis bread by singing hymns before the houses of the village. At theage of fifteen, he went to Eisenach, to a high school, and at eighteenentered the university of Erfurt, where he made considerable progressin the sciences then usually taught, which, however, were confinedchiefly to the scholastic philosophy. He did not know either Greek orHebrew, but read the Bible in Latin. In 1505, he took his degree ofbachelor of arts, and, shortly after, his religious strugglescommenced. He had witnessed a fearful tempest, which alarmed him, while on a visit at his father's house, and he was also much depressedby the death of an intimate friend. In that age, the serious and themelancholy generally sought monastic retreats, and Luther, thirstyafter divine knowledge, and anxious to save his soul, resolved toforsake the world, and become a monk. He entered an Augustinianmonastery at Erfurt, soon after obtaining his first degree. But theduties and studies of monastic life did not give his troubled soul therepose he sought. He submitted to all the irksome labors which themonks imposed; he studied the fathers and the schoolmen; he practisedthe most painful austerities, and fastings, and self-lacerations:still he was troubled with religious fears. His brethren encouragedhis good works, but his perplexities and doubts remained. In thisstate of mind, he was found by Staupitz, vicar-general of the order, who was visiting Erfurt, in his tour of inspection, with a view tocorrect the bad morals of the monasteries. He sympathized with Lutherin his religious feelings, treated him with great kindness, andrecommended the reading of the Scriptures, and also the works of St. Augustine whose theological views he himself had embraced. AlthoughSt. Augustine was a great oracle in the Roman church, still, hisdoctrines pertaining to personal salvation differed in spirit fromthose which were encouraged by the Roman Catholic divines generally, who attached less importance to justification by faith than did thevenerated bishop of Hyppo. In that age of abuses, great importance wasattached, by the church, to austerities, penance, and absolutions formoney. But Luther, deeply imbued with the spirit of Augustine, atlength found light, and repose, and joy, in the doctrine ofjustification by faith alone. This became more and more the idea ofhis life, especially at this time. The firmness of his convictions onthis point became extraordinary, and his spiritual gladness nowequalled his former depression and anxiety. He was soon to find asphere for the development of his views. 

Luther was consecrated as a priest in 1507, and in 1508 he was invitedby Frederic, Elector of Saxony, to become a professor in the newuniversity which he had established at Wittemberg. He was nowtwenty-five years of age, and the fact, that he should have beenselected, at that early age, to teach dialectics, is a strong argumentin favor of his attainments and genius. 

He now began to apply himself to the study of the Greek and Hebrew, and delivered lectures on biblical theology; and his novel method, andgreat enthusiasm, attracted a crowd of students. But his sermons weremore striking even than his lectures, and he was invited, by thecouncil of Wittemberg, to be the preacher for the city. His eloquence, his learning, and his zeal, now attracted considerable attention, andthe elector himself visited Wittemberg to hear him preach. 

In 1512, he was sent on an embassy to Rome, and, while in Italy, obtained useful knowledge of the actual state of the hierarchy, and ofmorals and religion. Julius II. , a warlike pontiff, sat on the throneof St. Peter; and the "Eternal City" was the scene of folly, dissipation, and clerical extortion. Luther returned to Germanycompletely disgusted with every thing he had seen--the levity andfrivolity of the clergy, and the ignorance and vices of the people. Hewas too earnest in his religious views and feelings to take muchinterest in the works of art, or the pleasures, which occupied theattention of the Italians; and the impression of the general iniquityand corruption of Rome never passed away, and probably gave a newdirection to his thoughts. 

[Sidenote: Luther's Early Religious Struggles. ]

On his return, in 1512, he was made doctor of divinity, then a greatdistinction, and renewed his lectures in the university with greatardor. He gave a new impulse to the studies, and a new form to theopinions of both professors and students. Lupinus and Carlstadt, hiscolleagues, were converts to his views. All within his sphere werecontrolled by his commanding genius, and extraordinary force ofcharacter. He commenced war upon the schoolmen, and was peculiarlyhostile to Thomas Aquinas, whom he accused of Pelagianism. He alsoattacked Aristotle, the great idol of the schools, and overwhelmedscholasticism with sarcasm and mockery. 

Such was the state of things when the preachers of indulgences, whomLeo X. Had encouraged, in order to raise money for St. Peter's Church, arrived in the country round the Elbe. They had already spread overGermany, Switzerland, and France. Their luxury and extravagance wereonly equalled by their presumption and insolence. All sorts of crimewere pardoned by these people for money. Among the most remarkable ofthese religious swindlers and peddlers was Tetzel. He was a friar ofthe Dominicans, apostolical commissioner, inquisitor, and bachelor oftheology. He united profligate morals with great pretensions tosanctity; was somewhat eloquent, so far as a sonorous voice wasconcerned, and was very bold and haughty, as vulgar men, raised toeminence and power, are apt to be. But his peculiarity consisted inthe audacity of his pretensions, and his readiness in inventingstories to please the people, ever captivated by rhetoric andanecdote. "Indulgences, " said he, "are the most precious and sublimeof God's gifts. " "I would not exchange my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls, with my indulgences, than he, with his sermons. " "There is no sin so great that theindulgence cannot remit it: even repentance is not necessary:indulgences save not the living alone, --they save the dead. " "The verymoment that the money clinks against the bottom of this chest, thesoul escapes from purgatory, and flies to heaven. " "And do you knowwhy our Lord distributes so rich a grace? The dilapidated Church ofSt. Peter and St. Paul is to be restored, which contains the bodies ofthose holy apostles, and which are now trodden, dishonored, andpolluted. "

[Sidenote: The Ninety-Five Propositions. ]

Tetzel found but few sufficiently enlightened to resist him, and heobtained great sums from the credulous people. This abominationexcited Luther's intensest detestation; and he accordingly wroteninety-five propositions, and nailed them, in 1517, to the gates ofthe church, in which he denounced the traffic in indulgences, andtraced the doctrine of absolution to the usurped power of the pope. Hedenied the value of his absolution, and maintained that the divinefavor would only be granted on the condition of repentance and faith. 

In these celebrated propositions, he struck at the root of scholasticabsurdities, and also of papal pretensions. The spirit which theybreathed was bold, intrepid, and magnanimous. They electrifiedGermany, and gave a shock to the whole papal edifice. They had both areligious and a political bearing; religious, in reference to thegrounds of justification, and political, in opening men's eyes to theunjust and ruinous extortions of Rome. 

Among those who perceived with great clearness the political tendencyof these propositions, and rejoiced in it, was the elector of Saxonyhimself, the most powerful prince of the empire, who had long beenvexed, in view of the vast sums which had been drained from hissubjects. He also lamented the corruptions of the church, and probablysympathized with the theological opinions of Luther. He accordinglyprotected the bold professor, although he did not openly encouragehim, or form an alliance with him. He let things take their course. Well did Frederic deserve the epithet of _Wise_. 

[Sidenote: Erasmus--Melancthon. ]

There was another great man who rejoiced in the appearance of Luther'stheses; and this was Erasmus, the greatest scholar of his age, theautocrat of letters, and, at that time, living in Basle. He was bornin Rotterdam, in 1467, of poor parents, but early attracted notice forhis attainments, and early emancipated himself from the trammels ofscholasticism, which he hated and despised as cordially as Lutherhimself. He also attacked, with elegant sarcasm the absurdities of hisage, both in literature and morals. He denounced the sins and folliesof the monks, and spoke of the necessity of reform. But hisdistinguishing excellence was his literary talent and taste. He was agreat Greek scholar, and published a critical edition of theTestament, which he accompanied with a Latin translation. In this, herendered great service to the reformers, especially to Luther. Hisfascinating style and extensive erudition gave him great literaryfame. But he was timid, conservative, and vain; and sought to bepopular, except among the monks, whom he uniformly ridiculed. Onedoctor hated him so cordially, that he had his picture hung up in hisstudy, that he might spit in his face as often as he pleased. So faras Luther opposed monkery and despotism, his sympathies were with him. But he did not desire a radical reformation, as Luther did, and alwaysshunned danger and obloquy. He dreaded an insurrection among thepeople, and any thing which looked either revolutionary or fanatical. Luther, therefore, much as he was gratified by his favor at first, soon learned to distrust him; and finally these two great men wereunfriendly to each other. 

Melancthon was too prominent an actor in the great drama about to beperformed, to be omitted in this sketch of great men who were on theside of reform. He was born in 1497, and was, therefore, fourteenyears younger than Luther. He was educated under the auspices of thecelebrated Greek scholar Reuchlin, who was also a relative. At twelve, he was sent to the university of Heidelberg; at fourteen, was madebachelor of arts; and at seventeen, doctor of philosophy. He began tolecture publicly at the age of seventeen; and, for his extraordinaryattainments, was invited to Wittemberg, as professor of ancientlanguages, at the age of twenty-one. He arrived there in 1518, andimmediately fell under the influence of Luther, who, however, acknowledged his classical attainments. He was considered a prodigy;was remarkably young looking, and so boyish, that the grave professorsconceived but little hope of him at first. But, when he delivered hisinaugural oration in Latin, all were astonished; and their prejudiceswere removed. Luther himself was enthusiastic in his praises, and afriendship commenced between them, which was never weakened by aquarrel. The mildness and gentleness of Philip Melancthon stronglycontrasted with the boldness, energy, and tumultuous passions ofLuther. The former was the more learned and elegant; the latter wasthe superior genius--a genius for commanding men, and guiding greatenterprises. 

[Sidenote: Melancthon--Leo X. ]

But there was another great personage, who now viewed the movement ofLuther with any thing but indifference; and this was Leo X. , thereigning pope when the theses were published. He belonged to theillustrious family of the Medici, and was chosen cardinal at the ageof thirteen. He was the most elegant and accomplished of all thepopes, patronized art and literature, and ornamented his capital withpalaces, churches, and statues. But with his sympathy for intellectualexcellence, he was prodigal, luxurious, and worldly. Indeed, hisspirit was almost infidel. He was more ambitious for temporal thanspiritual power; and, when he commenced his reign, the papalpossessions were more extensive and flourishing, than at any previousperiod. His leading error was, his recklessness in the imposition oftaxes, even on the clergy themselves, by which he lost theirconfidence and regard. With a very fine mind, he was, nevertheless, quite unfitted for his station and his times. 

Thus far, he had allowed the outcry which Luther had raised againstindulgences to take its course, and even disregarded the theses, whichhe supposed originated in a monkish squabble. But the EmperorMaximilian was alarmed, and wrote to the pope an account of Luther'sdifferences with Tetzel. Frederic of Saxony had also written to hisholiness, to palliate the conduct of Luther. 

When such powerful princes became interested, Leo was startled. Hesummoned Luther to Rome, to be tried by Prierias. Luther, not daringto refuse, and not willing to obey, wrote to his friend Spalatin touse his influence with the elector to have his cause tried in Germany;and the pope, willing to please Frederic, appointed De Vio, hislegate, to investigate the matter. Luther accordingly set out forAugsburg, in obedience to the summons of De Vio, although dissuaded bymany of his friends. He had several interviews with the legate, bywhom he was treated with courtesy and urbanity, and by whom he wasdissuaded from his present courses. But all the persuasion andargument of the cardinal legate were without effect on the mind ofLuther, whose convictions were not to be put aside by either kindnessor craft. De Vio had hoped that he could induce Luther to retract;but, when he found him fixed in his resolutions, he changed his tone, and resorted to threats. Luther then made up his mind to leaveAugsburg; and, appealing to the decision of the sovereign pontiff, whose authority he had not yet openly defied, he fled from the city, and returned to Wittemberg, being countenanced by the elector, to whomhe also addressed letters. His life was safe so long as Fredericprotected him. 

[Sidenote: The Leipsic Disputation. ]

The next event in the progress of Luther was the Leipsic disputation, June, 1519. The pope seemed willing to make one more effort toconvince Luther, before he proceeded to more violent courses. Therewas then at his court a noble Saxon, Charles Miltitz, whose talentsand insinuating address secured him the high office of chamberlain tothe pope. He accordingly was sent into his native country, with thedignity of legate, to remove the difficulties which De Vio hadattempted. He tried persuasion and flattery, and treated the reformerwith great civility. But Luther still persisted in refusing toretract, and the matter was referred to the elector archbishop ofTrèves. 

While the controversy was pending, Dr. Eck, of the university ofIngolstadt, a man of great scholastic ingenuity and attainment, andproud of the prizes of eight universities, challenged the professorsof Wittemberg to a public controversy on Grace and Free Will. Heregarded a disputation with the eye of a practised fencer, and soughtthe means of extending his fame over North Germany. Leipsic was theappointed arena, and thither resorted the noble and the learned ofSaxony. Eck was among the first who arrived, and, soon after, cameCarlstadt, Luther, and Melancthon. 

[Sidenote: Principles of the Leipsic Disputation. ]

The place for the combat was a hall in the royal palace of DukeGeorge, cousin to the elector Frederic, which was arranged andornamented with great care, and which was honored by the presence ofthe duke, and of the chief divines and nobles of Northern Germany. Carlstadt opened the debate, which did not excite much interest untilLuther's turn came, the antagonist whom Eck was most desirous to meet, and whose rising fame he hoped to crush by a brilliant victory. Rankethus describes Luther's person at this time. "He was of the middlesize, and so thin as to be mere skin and bone. He possessed neitherthe thundering voice, nor the ready memory, nor the skill anddexterity, of his distinguished antagonist. But he stood in the primeof manhood and in the fulness of his strength. His voice was melodiousand clear; he was perfectly versed in the Bible, and its aptestsentences presented themselves unbidden to his mind; above all, heinspired an irresistible conviction that he sought the truth. He wasalways cheerful at home, and a joyous, jocose companion at table; heeven, on this grave occasion, ascended the platform with a nosegay inhis hand; but, when there, he displayed the intrepid andself-forgetting earnestness arising from the depth of a conviction, until now, unfathomed, even by himself. He drew forth new thoughts, and placed them in the fire of the battle, with a determination thatknew no fear and no personal regard. His features bore the traces ofthe storms that had passed over his soul, and of the courage withwhich he was prepared to encounter those which yet awaited him. Hiswhole aspect evinced profound thought, joyousness of temper, andconfidence in the future. The battle immediately commenced on thequestion of the authority of the papacy, which, at once intelligibleand important, riveted universal attention. " Eck, with great eruditionand masterly logic, supported the claim of the pope, from the decreesof councils, the opinions of scholastics, and even from thosecelebrated words of Christ to Peter--"Thou art Peter, and on this rockwill I build my church, " &c. Luther took higher and bolder ground, denied the infallibility of councils, and appealed to Scripture as theultimate authority. Eck had probably the advantage over hisantagonist, so far as dialectics were concerned, being a more abledisputant; but Luther set at defiance mere scholastic logic, andappealed to an authority which dialectics could not reach. The victorywas claimed by both parties; but the result was, that Luther no longeracknowledged the authority of the Roman church, and acknowledged nonebut the Scriptures. 

[Sidenote: The Rights of Private Judgment. ]

The Leipsic disputation was the grand intellectual contest of theReformation, and developed its great idea--the only great principle, around which all sects and parties among the Protestants rally. Thisis the idea, that _the Scriptures are the only ultimate grounds ofauthority in religion, and that, moreover, every man has a right tointerpret them for himself_. The rights of private judgment--thatreligion is a matter between the individual soul and God, and thatevery man is answerable to his own conscience alone how he interpretsScripture--these constitute the great Protestant platform. Differentsects have different views respecting justification, but all professto trace them to the Scriptures. Luther's views were similar to thoseof St. Augustine--that "man could be justified by faith alone, " whichwas _his_ great theological doctrine--a doctrine adopted by many whonever left the communion of the Church of Rome, before and since hisday, and a doctrine which characterized the early reformers, Zwingle, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, and the Puritans generally. It is as absurd tosay that Luther's animating principle in religion was not thisdoctrine, as it is unphilosophical to make the reformation consistmerely in its recognition. After Luther's convictions were settled onthis point, and he had generally and openly declared them, the maincontest of his life was against the papacy, which he viewed as thepredicted Antichrist--the "scarlet mother of abominations. " It is notthe object of the writer of this History to defend or oppose Luther'sviews, or argue any cause whatever, but simply to place facts in theirtrue light, which is, to state them candidly. 

Although the Leipsic controversy brought out the great principle ofthe Reformation, Luther's views, both respecting the true doctrinesand polity of the church, were not, on all points, yet developed, andwere only gradually unfolded, as he gained knowledge and light. It wasno trifling matter, even to deny the supremacy of the Roman church inmatters of faith. He was thus placed in the position of Huss andJerome, and other reformers, who had been destroyed, with scarcely anexception. He thus was brought in direct conflict with the pope, withthe great dignitaries of the church, with the universities, and withthe whole scholastic literature. He had to expect the violentopposition and vengeance of the pope, of the monks, of the greatecclesiastical dignitaries, of the most distinguished scholars, and ofthose secular princes who were friendly to Rome. He had none toprotect him but a prince of the empire, powerful, indeed, and wise, but old and wavering. There were but few to uphold and defend him--thesatirical Erasmus, who was called a second Lucian, the feebleStaupitz, the fanatical Carlstadt, and the inexperienced Melancthon. The worldly-minded, the learned, the powerful, and the conservativeclasses were his natural enemies. But he had reason and Scripture onhis side, and he appealed to their great and final verdict. He hadsingular faith in the power of truth, and the gracious protection ofGod Almighty. Reposing on the greatness of his cause, and theprovidence of the omnipotent Protector, he was ready to defy all thearts, and theories, and malice of man. His weapon was truth. For truthhe fought, and for truth he was ready to die. The sophistries of theschools he despised; they had distorted and mystified the truth. Andhe knew them well, for he had been trained in the severest dialecticsof his time, and, though he despised them, he knew how to use them. The simple word of God, directed to the reason and conscience of men, seemed alone worthy of his regard. 

[Sidenote: Luther's Elements of Greatness. ]

But, beside Scripture and unperverted reason, he had another elementof power. He was master of the sympathies and passions of the people. His father was a toiling miner. His grandfather was a peasant. He hadbeen trained to penury; he had associated with the poor; he was a manof the people; he was their natural friend. He saw and lamented theirburdens, and rose up for their deliverance. And the peopledistinguished their true friend, from their false friends. They sawthe sincerity, earnestness, and labors of the new apostle of liberty, and believed in him, and made an idol of him. They would protect him, and honor him, and obey him, and believe what he taught them, for hewas their friend, whom God had raised up to take off their burdens, and point a way to heaven, without the intercession of priests, orindulgences, or penance. Their friend was to expose the corruptions ofthe clergy, and to give battle to the great arch enemy who built St. Peter's Church from their hard-earned pittances. A spirit from heavenenlightened those to whom Luther preached, and they rallied around hisstandard, and swore never to separate, until the great enemies of thepoor and the oppressed were rendered powerless. And their sympathieswere needed, and best services, too; for the great man of the age--theincarnated spirit of liberty--was in danger. 

[Sidenote: Excommunication of Luther. ]

The pope, hitherto mild, persuasive, and undecided, now arose in themajesty of his mighty name, and, as the successor of St. Peter, hurledthose weapons which had been thunderbolts in the hands of theGregories and the Innocents. From his papal throne, and with all thesolemnity of God's appointed vicegerent, he denounced the daring monkof Wittemberg, and sentenced him to the wrath of God, and to thepenalty of eternal fire. Luther was excommunicated by a papal bull, and his writings were condemned as heretical and damnable. 

This was a dreadful sentence. Few had ever resisted it successfully, even monarchs themselves. Excommunication was still a fearful weapon, and used only in desperate circumstances. It was used only as the lastresort; for frequency would destroy its power. In the middle ages, this weapon was omnipotent; and the middle ages had but just passedaway. No one could stand before that awful anathema which consignedhim to the wrath of incensed and implacable Deity. Much as someprofessed to despise the sentence, still, when inflicted, it could notbe borne, especially if accompanied with an interdict. Children wereleft unburied. The churches were closed. The rites of religion weresuspended. A funereal shade was spread over society. The fears of hellhaunted every imagination. No reason was strong enough to resist thesentence. No arm was sufficiently powerful to remove the curse. Ithung over a guilty land. It doomed the unhappy offender, who wascursed, wherever he went, and in whatever work he was engaged. 

But Luther was strong enough to resist it, and to despise it. He sawit was an imposition, which only barbarous and ignorant ages hadpermitted. Moreover, he perceived that there was now no alternativebut victory or death; that, in the great contest in which he wasengaged, retreat was infamy. Nor did he wish to retreat. He wasfighting for oppressed humanity, and death even, in such a cause, wasglory. He understood fully the nature and the consequence of thestruggle. He perceived the greatness of the odds against him, in aworldly point of view. No man but a Luther would have been equal toit; no man, before him, ever had successfully rebelled against thepope. It is only in view of this circumstance, that his intrepiditycan be appreciated. 

What did the Saxon monk do, when the papal bull was published? Heassembled the professors and students of the university, declared hissolemn protest against the pope as Antichrist, and marched inprocession to the gates of the Castle of Wittemberg, and there made abonfire, and cast into it the bull which condemned him, the canon law, and some writings of the schoolmen, and then reëntered the city, breathing defiance against the whole power of the pope, glowing in theconsciousness that the battle had commenced, to last as long as life, and perfectly secure that the victory would finally be on the side oftruth. This was in 1520, on the 10th of December. 

The attention of the whole nation was necessarily drawn to this openresistance; and the sympathy of the free thinking, the earnest, andthe religious, was expressed for him. Never was popular interest moreabsorbing, in respect to his opinions, his fortunes, and his fate. Thespirit of innovation became contagious, and pervaded the German mind. It demanded the serious attention of the emperor himself. 

[Sidenote: The Diet of Worms. ]

A great Diet of the empire was convened at Worms, and thither Lutherwas summoned by the temporal power. He had a safe-conduct, which evenso powerful a prince as Charles V. Durst not violate. In April, 1521, the reformer appeared before the collected dignitaries of the Germanempire, both spiritual and temporal, and was called upon to recant hisopinions as heretical in the eyes of the church, and dangerous to thepeace of the empire. Before the most august assembly in the world, without a trace of embarrassment, he made his defence, and refused torecant. "Unless, " said he, "my errors can be demonstrated by textsfrom Scripture, I will not and cannot recant; for it is not safe for aman to go against his conscience. Here I am. I can do no otherwise. God help me! Amen. "

This declaration satisfied his friends, though it did not satisfy themembers of the diet. Luther was permitted to retire. He had gained theconfidence of the nation. From that time, he was its idol, and theacknowledged leader of the greatest insurrection of human intelligencewhich modern times have seen. The great principles of the reformationwere declared. The great hero of the Reformation had planted his causeupon a rock. And yet his labors had but just commenced. Henceforth, his life was toil and vexation. New difficulties continually arose. New questions had to be continually settled. Luther, by his letters, was every where. He commenced the translation of the Scriptures; hewrote endless controversial tracts; his correspondence wasunparalleled; his efforts as a preacher were prodigious. But he wasequal to it all; was wonderfully adapted to his age and circumstances. 

[Sidenote: Imprisonment at Wartburg. ]

About this time commenced his voluntary imprisonment at Wartburg, among the Thuringian forests: he being probably conducted thither bythe orders of the elector of Saxony. Here he was out of sight, but notout of mind; and his retirement, under the disguise of a knight, gavehim leisure for literary labor. In the old Castle of Wartburg, a greatpart of the Scriptures was translated into that beautiful and simpleversion, which is still the standard of the German language. 

[Sidenote: Carlstadt. ]

While Luther was translating the Scriptures, in his retreat, Wittemberg was the scene of new commotions, pregnant with greatresults. There were many of the more zealous converts to the reformeddoctrines, headed by Carlstadt, dean of the faculty of theology, whowere not content with the progress which had been made, and whodesired more sweeping and radical changes. Such a party ever exists inall reforms; for there are some persons who are always inclined toultra and extravagant courses. Carlstadt was a type of such men. Hewas learned, sincere, and amiable, but did not know where to stop; andthe experiment was now to be tried, whether it was possible tointroduce a necessary reform, without annihilating also all theresults of the labors of preceding generations. Carlstadt's mind wasnot well balanced, and to him the reformation was only a half measure, and a useless movement, unless all the external observances ofreligion and the whole economy of the church were destroyed. Heabolished, or desired to abolish, all priestly garments, all fasts andholydays, all pictures in the churches, and all emblematicalceremonies of every kind. He insisted upon closing all places ofpublic amusement, the abolition of all religious communities, and thedivision of their possessions among the poor. He maintained that therewas no need of learning, or of academic studies, and even went intothe houses of the peasantry to seek explanation of difficult passagesof Scripture. For such innovations, the age was certainly notprepared, even had they been founded on reason; and the conservativemind of Luther was shocked at extravagances which served to disgustthe whole Christian world, and jeopardize the cause in which he hadembarked. So, against the entreaties of the elector, and in spite ofthe ban of the empire, he returned to Wittemberg, a small city, it wastrue, but a place to which had congregated the flower of the Germanyouth. He resolved to oppose the movements of Carlstadt, even thoughopposition should destroy his influence. Especially did he declareagainst all violent measures to which the ultra reformers wereinclined, knowing full well, that, if his cause were sullied withviolence or fanaticism, all Christendom would unite to suppress it. His sermons are, at this time, (1522, ) pervaded with a profound andconservative spirit, and also a spirit of conciliation and love, calculated to calm passions, and carry conviction to excited minds. His moderate counsels prevailed, the tumults were hushed, and orderwas restored. Carlstadt was silenced for a time; but a mind like hiscould not rest, especially on points where he had truth on his side. One of these was, in reference to the presence of Christ's body in theEucharist, which Carlstadt totally denied. He taught "that the Lord'ssupper was purely symbolic, and was simply a pledge to believers oftheir redemption. " But Luther saw, in every attempt to exhibit thesymbolical import of the supper, only the danger of weakening theauthority of Scripture, which was his stronghold, and becameexceedingly tenacious on that point; carried his views to the extremeof literal interpretation, and never could emancipate himself from thedoctrines of Rome respecting the eucharist. Carlstadt, finding himselfpersecuted at Wittemberg left the city, and, as soon as he wasreleased from the presence of Luther, began to revive his former zealagainst images also, and was the promoter of great disturbances. He atlast sought refuge in Strasburg, and sacrificed fame, and friends, andbread to his honest convictions. 

[Sidenote: Thomas Münzer. ]

But, nevertheless, the views of Carlstadt found advocates, and hisextravagances were copied with still greater zeal. Many pretended tospecial divine illumination--the great central principle of allfanaticism. Among these was Thomas Münzer, of Zwickau, mystical, ignorant, and conceited, but sincere and simple hearted. "Luther, "said he, "has liberated men's consciences from the papal yoke, but hasnot led them in spirit towards God. " Considering himself as calledupon by a special revelation to bring men into greater spiritualliberty, he went about inflaming the popular mind, and raisingdiscontents, and even inciting to a revolt. Religion now becamemingled with politics, and social and political evils were violentlyresisted, under the garb of religion. An insurrection at last arose inthe districts of the Black Forest, (1524, ) near the sources of theDanube, and spread from Suabia to the Rhine provinces, until it becameexceedingly formidable. Then commenced what is called the "peasants'war, " which was only ended by the slaughter of fifty thousand people. As the causes of this war, after all, were chiefly political, thedetails belong to our chapter on political history. For thisinsurrection of the peasantry, however, Luther expressed greatdetestation; although he availed himself of it to lecture the princesof Germany on their duties as civil rulers. 

The peasant war was scarcely ended, when Luther married CatharineBora; and, as she was a nun, and he was a monk, the marriage gaveuniversal scandal. But this marriage, which proved happy, was thesignal of new reforms. Luther now emancipated himself from hismonastic fetters, and lifted up his voice against the whole monasticsystem. Eight years had elapsed since he preached against indulgences. During these eight years, reform had been gradual, and had nowadvanced to the extreme limit it ever reached during the life of thereformer. 

But, in another quarter, it sprang up with new force, and was carriedto an extent not favored in Germany. It was in Switzerland that thegreatest approximation was made to the forms, if not to the spirit, ofprimitive Christianity. 

[Sidenote: Ulric Zwingle. ]

The great hero of this Swiss movement was Ulric Zwingle, the mostinteresting of all the reformers. He was born in 1484, and educatedamid the mountains of his picturesque country, and, like Erasmus, Reuchlin, Luther, and Melancthon, had no aristocratic claims, exceptto the nobility of nature. But, though poor, he was well educated, andwas a master of the scholastic philosophy and of all the learning ofhis age. Like Luther, he was passionately fond of music, and playedthe lute, the harp, the violin, the flute and the dulcimer. There wasno more joyous spirit in all Switzerland than his. Every one loved hissociety, and honored his attainments, and admired his genius. LikeLuther and Erasmus, he was disgusted with scholasticism, and regrettedthe time he had devoted to its study. He was ordained in 1506, by thebishop of Constance, and was settled in Zurich in 1518. At first, hislife did not differ from that which the clergy generally led, beingone of dissipation and pleasure. But he was studious, and became wellacquainted with the fathers, and with the original Greek. Onlygradually did light dawn upon him, and this in consequence of hisstudy of the Scriptures, not in consequence of Luther's preaching. Hehad no tempests to withstand, such as shook the soul of the Saxonmonk. Nor had he ever devoted himself with the same ardor to theestablished church. Nor was he so much interested on doctrinal pointsof faith. But he saw with equal clearness the corruptions of thechurch, and preached with equal zeal against indulgences and theusurpations of the popes. The reformation of morals was the great aimof his life. His preaching was practical and simple, and his doctrinewas, that "religion consisted in trust in God, loving God, andinnocence of life. " Moreover, he took a deep interest in the politicalrelations of his country, and was an enthusiast in liberty as well asin religion. To him the town of Zurich was indebted for itsemancipation from the episcopal government of Constance, and also fora reformation in all the externals of the church. He inspired thecitizens with that positive spirit of Protestantism, which afterwardscharacterized Calvin and the Puritans. He was too radical a reformerto suit Luther, although he sympathized with most of his theologicalopinions. 

[Sidenote: Controversy between Luther and Zwingle. ]

On one point, however, they differed; and this difference led to anacrimonious contest, quite disgraceful to Luther, and the greatestblot on his character, inasmuch as it developed, to an extraordinarydegree, both obstinacy and dogmatism, and showed that he could notbear contradiction or opposition. The quarrel arose from a differenceof views respecting the Lord's supper, Luther maintaining not exactlythe Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but somethingapproximating to it--even the omnipresence of Christ's body in thesacred elements. He relinquished the doctrine of the continuallyrepeated miracle, but substituted a universal miracle, wrought oncefor all. In his tenacity to the opinions of the schoolmen on thispoint, we see his conservative spirit; for he did not deny tradition, unless it was expressly contradicted by Scripture. He would havemaintained the whole structure of the Latin church, had it not beendisfigured by modern additions, plainly at variance with theScriptures; and so profoundly was he attached to the traditions of thechurch, and to the whole church establishment, that he onlyemancipated himself by violent inward storms. But Zwingle had not thislively conception of the universal church, and was more radical in hissympathies. He took Carlstadt's view of the supper, that it was merelysymbolic. Still he shrunk from a rupture with Luther, which, however, was unavoidable, considering Luther's views of the subject and hiscast of mind. Luther rejected all offers of conciliation, and, as heconsidered it essential to salvation to believe in the real presenceof Christ in the sacrament, he refused to acknowledge Zwingle as abrother. 

Zwingle, nevertheless, continued his reforms, and sought to restore, what he conceived to be, the earliest forms in which Christianity hadmanifested itself. He designed to restore a worship purely spiritual. He rejected all rites and ceremonies, not expressly enjoined in theBible. Luther insisted in retaining all that was not expresslyforbidden. And this was the main point of distinction between them andtheir adherents. 

But Zwingle contemplated political, as well as religious, changes, and, as early as 1527, two years before his conference with Luther atMarburg, had projected a league of all the reformers against thepolitical authorities which opposed their progress. He combated theabuses of the state, as well as of the church. This opposition createdgreat enemies against him among the cantons, with their differentgovernments and alliances. He also secured enthusiastic friends, and, in all the cantons, there was a strong democratic party opposed to theexisting oligarchies, which party, in Berne and Basle, St. Gall, Zurich, Appenzell, Schaffhausen, and Glarus, obtained the ascendency. This led to tumults and violence, and finally to civil war between thedifferent cantons, those which adhered to the old faith being assistedby Austria. Lucerne, Uri Schwytz, Zug, Unterwalden took the leadagainst the reformed cantons, the foremost of which was Zurich, whereZwingle lived. Zurich was attacked. Zwingle, from impulses ofpatriotism and courage, issued forth from his house, and joined thestandard of his countrymen, not as a chaplain, but as an armedwarrior. This was his mistake. "They who take the sword shall perishwith the sword. " The intrepid and enlightened reformer was slain in1531, and, with his death, expired the hopes of his party. Therestoration of the Roman Catholic religion immediately commenced inSwitzerland. 

Luther, more wise than Zwingle, inasmuch as he abstained frompolitics, continued his labors in Germany. And they were immense. Theburdens of his country rested on his shoulders. He was the dictator ofthe reformed party, and his word was received as law. Moreover, theparty continually increased, and, from the support it received fromsome of the most powerful of the German princes, it became formidable, even in a political point of view. Nearly one half of Germany embracedthe reformed faith. 

[Sidenote: Diet of Augsburg. ]

The illustrious Charles V. Had now, for some time, been emperor, and, in the prosecution of his conquests, found it necessary to secure thesupport of united Germany, especially since Germany was now invaded bythe Turks. In order to secure this support, he found it necessary tomake concessions in religion to his Protestant subjects. At the dietof Augsburg, (1530, ) where there was the most brilliant assemblage ofprinces which had been for a long time seen in Germany, the celebratedconfession of the faith of the Protestants was read. It was written byMelancthon, in both Latin and German, on the basis of the articles ofTorgau, which Luther had prepared. The style was Melancthon's; thematter was Luther's. It was comprised in twenty-eight articles, ofwhich twenty-one pertained to the faith of the Protestants--the namethey assumed at the second diet of Spires, in 1529--and the remainingseven recounted the errors and abuses of Rome. It was subscribed bythe Elector of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the Duke ofLunenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, and thedeputies of the imperial cities Nuremberg and Reutlingen. But theCatholics had the ascendency in the diet, and the "Confession ofAugsburg" was condemned. But the emperor did not venture on anydecisive measures for the extirpation of the "heresy. " He threatenedand published edicts, but his menaces had but little force. Nevertheless, the Protestant princes assembled, first at Smalcalde, and afterwards at Frankfort, for an alliance of mutual defence, --thefirst effective union of free princes and states against theiroppressors in modern Europe, --and laid the foundation of liberty ofconscience. Hostilities, however, did not commence, since the emperorwas desirous of uniting Germany against the Turks; and he thereforerecalled his edicts of Worms and Augsburg against the Protestants, andmade important concessions, and promised them undisturbed enjoyment oftheir religion. This was a great triumph to the Protestants, and asgreat a shock to the Papal power. 

[Sidenote: League of Smalcalde. ]

The Confession of Augsburg and the League of Smalcalde form animportant era of Protestantism, since, by these, the reformed faithreceived its definite form, and was moreover guaranteed. The work forwhich Luther had been raised up was now, in the main, accomplished. His great message had been delivered and heard. 

[Sidenote: Death and Character of Luther. ]

After the confirmation of his cause, his life was perplexed andanxious. He had not anticipated those civil commotions which he nowsaw, sooner or later, were inevitable. With the increase of his partywas the decline of spirituality. Political considerations, also, withmany, were more prominent than moral. Religion and politics weremingled together, not soon to be separated in the progress of reform. Moreover, the reformers differed upon many points among themselves. There was a lamentable want of harmony between the Germans and theSwiss. Luther had quarrelled with nearly every prominent person withwhom he had been associated, except Melancthon, who yielded to himimplicit obedience. But, above all, the Anabaptist disorders, which hedetested, and which distracted the whole bishopric of Münster, oppressed and mortified him. Worn out with cares, labors, andvexations, which ever have disturbed the peace and alloyed thehappiness of great heroes, and from which no greatness is exempt, hedied at Eisleben, in 1545, while on a visit to his native place inolder to reconcile dissensions between the counts of Mansfeldt. 

Luther's name is still reverenced in Germany, and, throughout allProtestant countries, he is regarded as the greatest man connectedwith the history of the church since the apostolic age. Others havebeen greater geniuses, others more learned, others more devout, andothers more amiable and interesting; but none ever evinced greaterintrepidity, or combined greater qualities of mind and heart. He hadhis faults: he was irritable, dogmatic, and abusive in hiscontroversial writings. He had no toleration for those who differedfrom him--the fault of the age. But he was genial, joyous, friendly, and disinterested. His labors were gigantic; his sincerityunimpeached; his piety enlightened; his zeal unquenchable. Circumstances and the new ideas of his age, favored him, but he madehimself master of those circumstances and ideas, and, what is more, worked out ideas of his own, which were in harmony with Christianity. The Reformation would have happened had there been no Luther, thoughat a less favorable time; but, of all the men of his age that theReformation could least spare, Martin Luther stands preëminent. As thegreatest of reformers, his name will be ever honored. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The attention of the student is directed only to the most prominent and valuable works which treat of Luther and the Protestant reformation. All the works are too numerous, even to be decimated. Allusion is made to those merely which are accessible and useful. Among them may be mentioned, as most important, Ranke's History of the Reformation; D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation; Michelet's Life of Luther; Audin's Life of Luther, a Catholic work, written with great spirit, but not much liberality; Stebbing's History of the Reformation; a Life of Luther, by Rev. Dr. Sears, a new work, written with great correctness and ability; Guizot's Lectures on Civilization; Plank's Essay on the Consequences of the Reformation. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE EMPEROR CHARLES V. 

[Sidenote: Charles V. ]

When Luther appeared upon the stage, the great monarchies of Europehad just arisen upon the ruins of those Feudal states which survivedthe wreck of Charlemagne's empire. 

The Emperor of Germany, of all the monarchs of Europe, had thegreatest claim to the antiquity and dignity of his throne. Ashereditary sovereign of Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and the Tyrol, hehad absolute authority in his feudal provinces; while, as an electedemperor, he had an indirect influence over Saxony, the Palatinate, thethree archbishoprics of Trèves, Mentz, and Cologne, and someBurgundian territories. 

[Sidenote: Spain and France in the Fifteenth Century. ]

But the most powerful monarchy, at this time, was probably that ofFrance; and its capital was the finest city in Europe, and the resortof the learned and elegant from all parts of Christendom. Allstrangers extolled the splendor of the court, the wealth of thenobles, and the fame of the university. The power of the monarch wasnearly absolute, and a considerable standing army, even then, wasready to obey his commands. 

Spain, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, was ruled byFerdinand and Isabella, who, by their marriage, had united the crownsof Castile and Arragon. The conquest of Granada and the discovery ofAmerica had added greatly to the political importance of Spain, andlaid the foundation of its future greatness under Philip II. 

England, from its insular position, had not so much influence inEuropean politics as the other powers to which allusion has been made, but it was, nevertheless, a flourishing and united kingdom. Henry VII. , the founder of the house of Tudor, sat on the throne, andwas successful in suppressing the power of the feudal nobility, and inincreasing the royal authority. Kings, in the fifteenth century, werethe best protectors of the people, and aided them in their strugglesagainst their feudal oppressors. England, however, had made but littleadvance in commerce or manufactures, and the people were still rudeand ignorant. The clergy, as in other countries, were the mostintelligent and wealthy portion of the population, and, consequently, the most influential, although disgraced by many vices. 

Italy then, as now, was divided into many independent states, anddistracted by civil and religious dissensions. The duchy of Milan wasruled by Ludovico Moro, son of the celebrated Francis Sforza. Naples, called a kingdom, had just been conquered by the French. Florence wasunder the sway of the Medici. Venice, whose commercial importance hadbegun to decline, was controlled by an oligarchy of nobles. The chairof St. Peter was filled by pope Alexander VI. , a pontiff who hasobtained an infamous immortality by the vices of debauchery, cruelty, and treachery. The papacy was probably in its most corrupt state, andthose who had the control of its immense patronage, disregarded theloud call for reformation which was raised in every corner ofChristendom. The popes were intent upon securing temporal as well asspiritual power, and levied oppressive taxes on both their spiritualand temporal subjects. 

The great northern kingdoms of Europe, which are now soconsiderable, --Russia, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, --did not, at thebeginning of the sixteenth century, attract much attention. They wereplunged in barbarism and despotism, and the light of science orreligion rarely penetrated into the interior. The monarchs weresensual and cruel, the nobles profligate and rapacious, the clergyignorant and corrupt, and the people degraded, and yet insensible totheir degradation, with no aspirations for freedom and no appreciationof the benefits of civilization. Such heroes as Peter and GustavusAdolphus had not yet appeared. Nor were these northern nationsdestined to be immediately benefited by the impulse which thereformation gave, with the exception of Sweden, then the most powerfulof these kingdoms. 

The Greek empire became extinct when Constantinople was taken by theTurks, in 1453. On its ruins, the Ottoman power was raised. At theclose of the fifteenth century, the Turkish arms were very powerful, and Europe again trembled before the Moslems. Greece and the whole ofWestern Asia were obedient to the sultan. But his power did not reachits culminating point until a century afterwards. 

Such were the various states of Europe when the Reformation broke out. Maximilian was emperor of Germany, and Charles V. Had just inherited, from his father, Philip the Fair, who had married a daughter ofFerdinand and Isabella, the kingdom of Spain, in addition to thedominion of the Netherlands. 

By the death of Maximilian, in 1519, the youthful sovereign of Spainand the Netherlands came into possession of the Austrian dominions;and the electors, shortly after, chose him emperor of Germany. 

He was born at Ghent, A. D. 1500, and was educated with great care. Heearly displayed his love of government, and, at fifteen, was presentat the deliberations of the cabinet. But he had no taste for learning, and gave but few marks of that genius which he afterwards evinced. Hewas much attached to his Flemish subjects, and, during the first yearof his reign, gave great offence to the grandees of Spain and thenobles of Germany by his marked partiality for those men who had beenhis early companions. 

It is difficult to trace, in the career of Charles V. , any powerfulmotives of conduct, separate from the desire of aggrandizement. Theinterests of the church, with which he was identified, and the truewelfare of his subjects, were, at different times, sacrificed to hisambition. Had there been no powerful monarchs on the other thrones ofEurope, his dreams of power might possibly have been realized. But atthis period there happened to be a constellation of princes. 

[Sidenote: Wars between Charles and Francis. ]

The greatest of these, and the chief rival through life of Charles, was Francis I. Of France. He had even anticipated an election to theimperial crown, which would have made him more powerful than evenCharles himself. The electors feared both, and chose Frederic ofSaxony; but he declined the dangerous post. Charles, as Archduke ofAustria, had such great and obvious claims, that they could not bedisregarded. He was therefore the fortunate candidate. But hiselection was a great disappointment to Francis, and he could notconceal his mortification. Peace could not long subsist between twoenvious and ambitious princes. Francis was nearly of the same age asCharles, had inherited nearly despotic power, was free from financialembarrassments, and ruled over an united and loyal people. He wastherefore no contemptible match for Charles. In addition, hestrengthened himself by alliances with the Swiss and Venetians. Charles sought the favor of the pope and Henry VIII. Of England. Thereal causes of war were mutual jealousies, and passion for militaryglory. The assigned causes were, that Charles did not respect theclaims of Francis as king of Naples; and, on the other hand, thatFrancis had seized the duchy of Milan, which was a fief of the empire, and also retained the duchy of Burgundy, the patrimonial inheritanceof the emperor. 

The political history of Europe, for nearly half a century, is arecord of the wars between these powerful princes, of their mutualdisasters, disappointments, and successes. Other contests wereinvolved in these, and there were also some which arose from causesindependent of mutual jealousy, such as the revolt of the Spanishgrandees, of the peasants in Germany, and of the invasion of theempire by the Turks. During the reign of Charles, was also thedivision of the princes of Germany, on grounds of religion--thefoundation of the contest which, after the death of Charles, convulsedGermany for thirty years. But the Thirty Years' War was a religiouswar--was one of the political consequences of the Reformation. Thewars between Charles and Francis were purely wars of militaryambition. Charles had greater territories and larger armies; butFrancis had more money, and more absolute control over his forces. Charles's power was checked in Spain by the free spirit of the Cortes, and in Germany by the independence of the princes, and by theembarrassing questions which arose out of the Reformation. 

It would be tedious to read the various wars between Charles and hisrival. Each of them gained, at different times, great successes, andeach experienced, in turn, the most humiliating reverses. Francis waseven taken prisoner at the battle of Pavia, in 1525, and confined in afortress at Madrid, until he promised to the victors the completedismemberment of France--an extorted promise he never meant to keep. No sooner had he recovered his liberty, than he violated all hisoaths, and Europe was again the scene of fresh hostilities. Thepassion of revenge was now added to that of ambition, and, as the popehad favored the cause of Francis, the generals of Charles invadedItaly. Rome was taken and sacked by the constable Bourbon, a Frenchnoble whom Francis had slighted, and cruelties and outrages wereperpetrated by the imperial forces which never disgraced Alaric orAttila. 

Charles affected to be filled with grief in view of the victories ofhis generals, and pretended that they acted without his orders. Heemployed every artifice to deceive indignant Christendom, andappointed prayers and processions throughout Spain for the recovery ofthe pope's liberty, which one stroke of his pen could have secured. Thus it was, that the most Catholic and bigoted prince in Europeseized the pope's person, and sacked his city, at the very time whenLuther was prosecuting his reform. And this fact shows how much morepowerfully the emperor was influenced by political, than by religiousconsiderations. It also shows the providence of God in permitting theonly men, who could have arrested the reformation, to spend theirstrength in battling each other, rather than the heresy which theydeplored. Had Charles been less powerful and ambitious, he probablywould have contented himself in punishing heretics, and in unitingwith his natural ally, the pope, in suppressing every insurrectionwhich had for its object the rights of conscience and the enjoyment ofpopular liberty. 

The war was continued for two years longer between Francis andCharles, with great acrimony, but with various success, both partiesbeing, at one time, strengthened by alliances, and then again weakenedby desertions. At last, both parties were exhausted, and were willingto accede to terms which they had previously rejected with disdain. Francis was the most weakened and disheartened, but Charles was themost perplexed. The troubles growing out of the Reformation demandedhis attention, and the Turks, at this period a powerful nation, wereabout invading Austria. The Spaniards murmured at the unusual lengthof the war, and money was with difficulty obtained. 

Hence the peace of Cambray, August 5, 1529; which was veryadvantageous to Charles, in consequence of the impulsive character ofFrancis, and his impatience to recover his children, whom he hadsurrendered to Charles in order to recover his liberty. He agreed topay two millions of crowns for the ransom of his sons, and renouncehis pretensions in the Low Countries and Italy. He, moreover, lostreputation, and the confidence of Europe, by the abandonment of hisallies. Charles remained the arbiter of Italy, and was attentive tothe interests of all who adhered to him. With less _chivalry_ than hisrival, he had infinitely more _honor_. Cold, sagacious, selfish, andambitious, he was, however, just, and kept his word. He combinedqualities we often see in selfish men--a sort of legal and technicalregard to the letter of the law, with the constant violation of itsspirit. A Shylock might not enter a false charge upon his books, whilehe would adhere to a most extortionate bargain. 

Charles, after the treaty of Cambray was signed, visited Italy withall the pomp of a conqueror. At Genoa, he honored Doria with manymarks of distinction, and bestowed upon the republic new privileges. He settled all his difficulties with Milan, Venice, and Florence, andreëstablished the authority of the Medici. He was then crowned by thepope, whom he had trampled on, as King of Lombardy and Emperor of theRomans, and hastened into Germany, which imperatively required hispresence, both on account of dissensions among the princes, which thereformation caused, and the invasion of Austria by three hundredthousand Turks. He resolved to recover the old prerogatives of theemperor of Germany, and crush those opinions which were undermininghis authority, as well as the power of Rome, with which his own wasidentified. 

[Sidenote: Diet of Spires. ]

A Diet of the empire was accordingly summoned at Spires, in order totake into consideration the state of religion, the main cause of allthe disturbances in Germany. It met on the 15th of March, 1529, andthe greatest address was required to prevent a civil war. All thatCharles could obtain from the assembled princes was, the promise toprevent any further innovations. A decree to that effect was passed, against which, however, the followers of Luther protested, the mostpowerful of whom were the Elector of Saxony, the Marquis ofBrandenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Duke of Lunenburg, the Princeof Anhalt, and the deputies of fourteen imperial cities. This protestgave to them the name of _Protestants_--a name ever since retained. Soon after, the diet assembled at Augsburg, when the articles of faithamong the Protestants were read, --known as the Confession ofAugsburg, --which, however, the emperor opposed. In consequence of hisdecree, the Protestant princes entered into a league at Smalcalde, (December 22, 1530, ) to support one another, and defend theirreligion. Circumstances continually occurred to convince Charles, thatthe extirpation of heresy by the sword was impossible in Germany, andmoreover, he saw it was for his interest--to which his eye waspeculiarly open--to unite all the German provinces in a vigorousconfederation. Accordingly after many difficulties, and with greatreluctance, terms of pacification were agreed upon at Nuremburg, (1531, ) and ratified in the diet at Ratisbon, shortly after, by whichit was agreed that no person should be molested in his religion, andthat the Protestants, on their part, should assist the emperor inresisting the invasion of the Turks. The Germans, with their customarygood faith, furnished all the assistance they promised, and one of thebest armies ever raised in Germany, amounting to ninety thousand foot, and thirty thousand horse, took the field, commanded by the emperor inperson. But the campaign ended without any memorable event, bothparties having erred from excessive caution. 

[Sidenote: Hostilities between Charles and Francis. ]

Francis soon availed himself of the difficulties and dangers of hisrival, formed an alliance with the Turks, put forth his old claims, courted the favor of the German Protestants, and renewed hostilities. He marched towards Italy, and took possession of the dominions of theduke of Savoy, whom the emperor, at this juncture, was unable toassist, on account of his African expedition against the pirateBarbarossa. This noted corsair had built up a great power in Tunis andAlgiers, and committed shameful ravages on all Christian nations. Charles landed in Africa with thirty thousand men, took the fortressof Goletta, defeated the pirate's army, captured his capital, andrestored the exiled Moorish king to his throne. In the midst of thesevictories Francis invaded Savoy. Charles was terribly indignant, andloaded his rival with such violent invectives that Francis challengedhim to single combat. The challenge was accepted, but the duel wasnever fought. Charles, in his turn, invaded France, with a large army, for that age--forty thousand foot and ten thousand horse; but theexpedition was unfortunate. Francis acted on the defensive withadmirable skill, and was fortunate in his general Montmorency, whoseemed possessed with the spirit of a Fabius. The emperor, at last, was compelled to return ingloriously, having lost half of his armywithout having gained a single important advantage. The joy ofFrancis, however, was embittered by the death of the dauphin, attributed by some to the infamous Catharine de Medicis, wife of theDuke of Orleans, in order to secure the crown to her husband. War didnot end with the retreat of Charles, but was continued, with greatpersonal animosity, until mutual exhaustion led to a truce for tenyears, concluded at Nice, in 1538. Both parties had exerted theirutmost strength, and neither had obtained any signal advantage. Notwithstanding their open and secret enmity, they had an interviewshortly after the truce, in which both vied with each other inexpressions of esteem and friendship, and in the exhibition ofchivalrous courtesies--a miserable mockery, as shown by the violationof the terms of the truce, and the renewal of hostilities in 1541. 

[Sidenote: African Wars. ]

These were, doubtless, facilitated by Charles's unfortunate expeditionagainst Algiers in 1541, by which he gained nothing but disgrace. Hisarmy was wasted by famine and disease, and a tempest destroyed hisfleet. All the complicated miseries which war produces were endured byhis unfortunate troops, but a small portion of whom ever returned. Francis, taking advantage of these misfortunes, made immense militarypreparations, formed a league with the Sultan Solyman, and broughtfive armies into the field. He assumed the offensive, and invaded theNetherlands, but obtained no laurels. Charles formed a league withHenry VIII. , and the war raged, with various success, without eitherparty obtaining any signal advantage, for three years, when a peacewas concluded at Crespy, in 1544. Charles, being in the heart ofFrance with an invading army, had the apparent advantage but thedifficulty of retreating out of France in case of disaster, and thetroubles in Germany, forced him to suspend his military operations. The pope, also, was offended because he had conceded so much to theProtestants, and the Turks pressed him on the side of Hungary. Moreover, he was afflicted with the gout, which indisposed him forcomplicated enterprises. In view of these things, he made peace withFrancis, formed a strong alliance with the pope, and resolved toextirpate the Protestant religion, which was the cause of so manyinsurrections in Germany. 

[Sidenote: Council of Trent. ]

In the mean time, the pope resolved to assemble the famous Council ofTrent, the legality of which the Protestants denied. It met inDecember, 1545, and was the last general council which the popes everassembled. It met with a view of healing the dissensions of thechurch, and confirming the authority of the pope. The princes ofEurope hoped that important reforms would have been made; but nothingof consequence was done, and the attention of the divines was directedto dogmas rather than morals. The great number of Italian bishopsenabled the pope to have every thing his own way, in spite of theremonstrance of the German, Spanish, and French prelates, and theambassadors of the different monarchs, who also had seats in thecouncil. The decrees of this council, respecting articles of faith, are considered as a final authority by the Roman church. It denouncedthe reform of Luther, and confirmed the various ecclesiasticalusurpations which had rendered the reformation necessary. It lastedtwenty-two years, at different intervals, during the pontificate offive popes. The Jesuits, just rising into notice, had considerableinfluence in the council, in consequence of the learning and abilityof their representatives, and especially of Laynez, the general of theorder. The Dominicans and Franciscans manifested their accustomedanimosities and rivalries, and questions were continually proposed andagitated, which divided the assembly. The French bishops, headed bythe Cardinal of Lorraine, were opposed to the high pretensions of theItalians, especially of Cardinal Morone, the papal legate; but, byartifice and management, the more strenuous adherents of the popeattained their ends. 

About the time the council assembled, died three distinguishedpersons--Henry VIII. Of England, Francis I. , and Luther. Charles V. Was freed from his great rival, and from the only private person inhis dominions he had reason to fear. He now, in good earnest, turnedhis attention to the internal state of his empire, and resolved tocrush the Reformation, and, by force, if it were necessary. Hecommenced by endeavoring to amuse and deceive the Protestants, andevinced that profound dissimulation, which was one of hischaracteristics. He formed a strict alliance with the pope, made atruce with Solyman, and won over to his side Maurice and other Germanprinces. His military preparations and his intrigues alarmed theProtestants, and they prepared themselves for resistance. Religiouszeal seconded their military ardor. One of the largest armies, whichhad been raised in Europe for a century, took the field, and Charles, shut up in Ratisbon, was in no condition to fight. Unfortunately forthe Protestants, they negotiated instead of acting. The emperor was intheir power, but he was one of those few persons who remained haughtyand inflexible in the midst of calamities. He pronounced the ban ofthe empire against the Protestant princes, who were no match for a manwho had spent his life in the field: they acted without concert, andcommitted many errors. Their forces decreased, while those of theemperor increased by large additions from Italy and Flanders. Insteadof decisive action, the Protestants dallied and procrastinated, unwilling to make peace, and unwilling to face their sovereign. Theirarmy melted away, and nothing of importance was effected. 

[Sidenote: Treachery of Maurice. ]

Maurice, cousin to the Elector of Saxony, with a baseness to whichhistory scarcely affords a parallel, deserted his allies, and joinedthe emperor, purely from ambitious motives, and invaded theterritories of his kinsman with twelve thousand men. The confederatesmade overtures of peace, which being rejected, they separated, andmost of them submitted to the emperor. He treated them withhaughtiness and rigor, imposed on them most humiliating terms, forcedthem to renounce the league of Smalcalde, to give up their militarystores, to admit garrisons into their cities, and to pay largecontributions in money. 

The Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse, however held out;and such was the condition of the emperor, that he could notimmediately attack them. But the death of Francis gave him leisure toinvade Saxony, and the elector was defeated at the battle ofMuhlhausen, (1547, ) and taken prisoner. The captive prince approachedthe victor without sullenness or pride. "The fortune of war, " said he, "has made me your prisoner, most gracious emperor, and I hope to betreated ----" Here Charles interrupted him--"And am I, at last, acknowledged to be emperor? Charles of Ghent was the only title youlately allowed me. You shall be treated as you deserve. " At thesewords he turned his back upon him with a haughty air. 

[Sidenote: Captivity of the Landgrave of Hesse. ]

The unfortunate prince was closely guarded by Spanish soldiers, andbrought to a trial before a court martial, at which presided theinfamous Duke of Alva, afterwards celebrated for his cruelties inHolland. He was convicted of treason and rebellion, and sentenced todeath--a sentence which no court martial had a right to inflict on thefirst prince of the empire. He was treated with ignominious harshness, which he bore with great magnanimity, but finally made a treaty withthe emperor, by which, for the preservation of his life, herelinquished his kingdom to Maurice. 

The landgrave was not strong enough to resist the power of Charles, after all his enemies were subdued, and he made his submission, thoughCharles extorted the most rigorous conditions, he being required tosurrender his person, abandon the league of Smalcalde, implore pardonon his knees, demolish his fortifications, and pay an enormous fine. In short, it was an unconditional submission. Beside infinitemortifications, he was detained a prisoner, which, on Charles's part, was but injury added to insult--an act of fraud and injustice whichinspired the prince, and the Protestants, generally, with unboundedindignation. The Elector of Brandenburg and Maurice in vain solicitedfor his liberty, and showed the infamy to which he would be exposed ifhe detained the landgrave a prisoner. But the emperor listened totheir remonstrances with the most provoking coolness, and showed veryplainly that he was resolved to crush all rebellion, suppressProtestantism, and raise up an absolute throne in Germany, to thesubversion of its ancient constitution. 

To all appearances, his triumph was complete. His great rival wasdead; his enemies were subdued and humiliated; Luther's voice washushed; and immense contributions filled the imperial treasury. He nowbegan to realize the dreams of his life. He was unquestionably, atthat time, the most absolute and powerful prince Europe has ever seensince Charlemagne, with the exception of Napoleon. 

But what an impressive moral does the history of human greatnessconvey! The hour of triumph is often but the harbinger of defeat andshame. "Pride goeth before destruction. " Charles V. , with all hispolicy and experience, overreached himself. The failure of hisambitious projects and the restoration of Protestantism, were broughtabout by instruments the least anticipated. 

[Sidenote: Heroism of Maurice. . ]

[Sidenote: Misfortunes of Charles. . ]

The cause of Protestantism and the liberties of Germany wereendangered by the treachery of Maurice, who received, as his reward, the great electorate of Saxony. He had climbed to the summit of gloryand power. Who would suppose that this traitor prince would desert theemperor, who had so splendidly rewarded his services, and return tothe rescue of those princes whom he had so basely betrayed? But whocan thread the labyrinth of an intriguing and selfish heart? Who cancalculate the movements of an unprincipled and restless politician?Maurice, at length, awoke to the perception of the real condition ofhis country. He saw its liberties being overturned by the mostambitious man whom ten centuries had produced. He saw the cause, whichhis convictions told him was the true one, in danger of being wrecked. He was, moreover, wounded by the pride, coldness, and undisguisedselfishness of the emperor. He was indignant that the landgrave, hisfather-in-law, should be retained a prisoner, against all the laws ofhonor and of justice. He resolved to come to the rescue of hiscountry. He formed his plans with the greatest coolness, and exerciseda power of dissimulation that has no parallel in history. But hisaddress was even greater than his hypocrisy. He gained the confidenceof the Protestants, without losing that of the emperor. He evenobtained the command of an army which Charles sent to reduce therebellious city of Magdeburg, and, while he was besieging the city, hewas negotiating with the generals who defended it for a general unionagainst the emperor. Magdeburg surrendered in 1551. Its chieftainswere secretly assured that the terms of capitulation should not beobserved. His next point was, to keep the army together until hisschemes were ripened, and then to arrest the emperor, whose thoughtsnow centred on the council of Trent. So he proposed sending Protestantdivines to the council, but delayed their departure by endlessnegotiations about the terms of a safe conduct. He, moreover, formed asecret treaty with Henry II. , the successor of Francis, whoseanimosity against Charles was as intense as was that of his father. When his preparations were completed, he joined his army in Thuringia, and took the field against the emperor, who had no suspicion of hisdesigns, and who blindly trusted to him, deeming it impossible that aman, whom he had so honored and rewarded, could turn against him. March 18, 1552, Maurice published his manifesto, justifying hisconduct; and his reasons were, to secure the Protestant religion, tomaintain the constitution of the empire, and deliver the Landgrave ofHesse from bondage. He was powerfully supported by the French king, and, with a rapidly increasing army, marched towards Innspruck, wherethe emperor was quartered. The emperor was thunderstruck when he heardthe tidings of his desertion, and was in no condition to resist him. He endeavored to gain time by negotiations, but these were withouteffect. Maurice, at the head of a large army, advanced rapidly intoUpper Germany. Castles and cities surrendered as he advanced, and sorapid was his progress, that he came near taking the emperor captive. Charles was obliged to fly, in the middle of the night, and to travelon a litter by torchlight, amid the passes of the Alps. He scarcelyleft Innspruck before Maurice entered it--but too late to gain theprize he sought. The emperor rallied his armies, and a vigorous warwas carried on between the contending parties, to the advantage of theProtestants. The emperor, after a while, was obliged to make peacewith them, for his Spanish subjects were disgusted with the war, hisfunds were exhausted, his forces dispersed, and his territoriesthreatened by the French. On the 2d of August, 1552, was concluded thepeace of Passau, which secured the return of the landgrave to hisdominions, the freedom of religion to the Protestants, and thepreservation of the German constitution. The sanguine hopes of theemperor were dispelled, and all his ambitious schemes defeated, and heleft to meditate, in the intervals of the pains which he suffered fromthe gout, on the instability of all greatness, and the vanity of humanlife. Maurice was now extolled as extravagantly as he had been beforedenounced, and his treachery justified, even by grave divines. Butwhat is most singular in the whole affair, was, that the French king, while persecuting Protestants at home, should protect them abroad. Butthis conduct may confirm, in a signal manner, the great truth ofhistory, that God regulates the caprice of human passions, and makesthem subservient to the accomplishment of his own purposes. 

[Sidenote: Treaty of Passau. ]

The labors and perplexities of Charles V. Were not diminished by thetreaty of Passau. He continued his hostilities against the French andagainst the Turks. He was obliged to raise the siege of Metz, whichwas gallantly defended by the Duke of Guise. To his calamities inFrance, were added others in Italy. Sienna revolted against hisgovernment, and Naples was threatened by the Turks. The imperialistswere unsuccessful in Italy and in Hungary, and the Archduke Ferdinandwas obliged to abandon Transylvania. But war was carried on in the LowCountries with considerable vigor. 

Charles, whose only passion was the aggrandizement of his house, nowprojected a marriage of his son, Philip, with Mary, queen of England. The queen, dazzled by the prospect of marrying the heir of thegreatest monarch in Europe, and eager to secure his powerful aid toreëstablish Catholicism in England, listened to his proposal, althoughit was disliked by the nation. In spite of the remonstrance of thehouse of commons, the marriage treaty was concluded, and the marriagecelebrated, (1554. )

[Sidenote: Character of Charles V. ]

Soon after, Charles formed the extraordinary resolution of resigninghis dominions to his son, and of retiring to a quiet retreat. Diocletian is the only instance of a prince, capable of holding thereins of government, who had adopted a similar course. All Europe wasastonished at the resolution of Charles, and all historians of theperiod have moralized on the event. But it ceases to be mysterious, when we remember that Charles was no nearer the accomplishment of theends which animated his existence, than he was thirty years before;that he was disgusted and wearied with the world; that he sufferedseverely from the gout, which, at times, incapacitated him for thegovernment of his extensive dominions. It was never his habit tointrust others with duties and labors which he could perform himself, and he felt that his empire needed a more powerful protector than hisinfirmities permitted him to be. He was grown prematurely old, he felthis declining health; longed for repose, and sought religiousconsolation. Of all his vast possessions, he only reserved an annualpension of one hundred thousand crowns; resigning Spain and the LowCountries into the hands of Philip, and the empire of Germany to hisbrother Ferdinand, who had already been elected as King of the Romans. He then set out for his retreat in Spain, which was the monastery ofSt. Justus, near Placentia, situated in a lovely vale, surrounded withlofty trees, watered by a small brook, and rendered attractive by thefertility of the soil, and the delightful temperature of the climate. Here he spent his last days in agricultural improvements and religiousexercises, apparently regardless of that noisy world which he haddeserted forever, and indifferent to those political storms which hisrestless ambition had raised. Here his grandeur and his worldly hopeswere buried in preparing himself for the future world. He lived withgreat simplicity, for two years after his retreat, and died (1558, )from the effects of the gout, which, added to his great labors, hadshattered his constitution. He was not what the world would call agreat genius, like Napoleon; but he was a man of great sagacity, untiring industry, and respectable attainments. He was cautious, cold, and selfish; had but little faith in human virtue, and was a slave, inhis latter days, to superstition. He was neither affable norcourteous, but was sincere in his attachments, and munificent inrewarding his generals and friends. He was not envious nor cruel, butinordinately ambitious, and intent on aggrandizing his family. Thiswas his characteristic defect, and this, in a man so prominent and sofavored by circumstances, was enough to keep Europe in a turmoil fornearly half a century. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Robertson's History of Charles V. Ranke's History of the Reformation. Kohlrausch's History of Germany. Russell's Modern Europe. The above-mentioned authors are easily accessible, and are all that are necessary for the student. Robertson's History is a classic, and an immortal work. 

CHAPTER IV. 

HENRY VIII. 

The history of Europe in the sixteenth century is peculiarly thehistory of the wars of kings, and of their efforts to establishthemselves and their families on absolute thrones. The monotonous, andalmost exclusive, record of royal pleasures and pursuits shows in howlittle consideration the people were held. They struggled, and toiled, and murmured as they do now. They probably had the same joys andsorrows as in our times. But, in these times, they have considerableinfluence on the government, the religion, the literature, and thesocial life of nations. In the sixteenth century, this influence wasnot so apparent; but power of all kinds seemed to emanate from kingsand nobles; at least from wealthy and cultivated classes. When this isthe case, when kings give a law to society, history is notunphilosophical which recognizes chiefly their enterprises and ideas. 

[Sidenote: Rise of Absolute Monarchy. ]

The rise of absolute monarchy on the ruins of feudal states is one ofthe chief features of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There wasevery where a strong tendency to centralization. Provinces, beforeindependent, were controlled by a central government. Standing armiestook the place of feudal armies. Kings took away from nobles the rightto coin money, administer justice, and impose taxes. The power of thecrown became supreme and unlimited. 

But some monarchs were more independent than others, in proportion asthe power of nobles was suppressed, or, as the cities sided with thecentral government, or, as provinces were connected and boundtogether. The power of Charles V. Was somewhat limited, in Spain, bythe free spirit of the Cortes, and, in Germany, by the independence ofthe princes of the empire. But, in France and England, the king wasmore absolute, although he did not rule over so great extent ofterritory as did the emperor of Germany; and this is one reason whyFrancis I. Proved so strong an antagonist to his more powerful rival. 

The history of France, during the reign of this monarch, is also thehistory of Charles V. , since they were both engaged in the same wars;which wars have already been alluded to. Both of these monarchs failedin the objects of their existence. If Charles did not realize hisdream of universal empire, neither did Francis leave his kingdom, athis death, in a more prosperous state than he found it. 

Francis I. Was succeeded by his son Henry II. , a warlike prince, butdestitute of prudence, and under the control of women. His policy, however, was substantially that of his father, and he continuedhostilities against the emperor of Germany, till his resignation. Hewas a bitter persecutor of the Protestants, and the seeds ofsubsequent civil wars were sown by his zeal. He was removed from histhrone prematurely, being killed at a tournament, in 1559, soon afterthe death of Charles V. Tournaments ceased with his death. 

[Sidenote: Henry VIII. ]

The reign of Henry VIII. , the other great contemporary of Charles V. , merits a larger notice, not only because his reign was thecommencement of a new era in England, but, also, because the affairs, which engaged his attention, are not much connected with continentalhistory. 

He ascended the throne in the year 1509, in his eighteenth year, without opposition, and amid the universal joy of the nation; for hismanners were easy and frank, his disposition was cheerful, and hisperson was handsome. He had made respectable literary attainments, andhe gave promise of considerable abilities. He was married, soon afterhis accession, to Catharine, daughter of the King of Spain, and thefirst years of his reign were happy, both to himself and to hissubjects. He had a well-filled treasury, which his father had amassedwith great care, a devoted people and an obedient parliament. Allcircumstances seemed to conspire to strengthen his power, and to makehim the arbiter of Europe. 

But this state did not last long. The young king was resolved to makewar on France, but was diverted from his aim by troubles in Scotland, growing out of his own rapacity--a trait which ever peculiarlydistinguished him. These troubles resulted in a war with the Scots, who were defeated at the memorable battle of Flodden Field, which SirWalter Scott, in his Marmion, has immortalized. The Scotch commanders, Lenox and Argyle, both perished, as well as the valiant King Jameshimself. There is scarcely an illustrious Scotch family who had not anancestor slain on that fatal day, September 9, 1513. But the victorywas dearly bought, and Surrey, the English general, afterwards Duke ofNorfolk, was unable to pursue his advantages. 

[Sidenote: Rise of Cardinal Wolsey. ]

About this time, the celebrated Cardinal Wolsey began to act aconspicuous part in English affairs. His father was a butcher ofIpswich; but was able to give his son a good education. He studied atOxford, was soon distinguished for his attainments, and became tutorto the sons of the Marquis of Dorset. The marquis gave him the richliving of Limington; but the young parson, with his restless ambition, and love of excitement and pleasure, was soon wearied of a countrylife. He left his parish to become domestic chaplain to the treasurerof Calais. This post introduced him to Fox, bishop of Winchester, whoshared with the Earl of Surrey the highest favors of royalty. Theminister and diplomatist, finding in the young man learning, tact, vivacity, and talent for business, introduced him to the king, hopingthat he would prove an agreeable companion for Henry, and a usefultool for himself. But those who are able to manage other people'sbusiness, generally are able to manage their own. The tool of Foxlooked after his own interest chiefly. He supplanted his master in theloyal favor, and soon acquired more favor and influence at court thanany of the ministers or favorites. Though twenty years older thanHenry, he adapted himself to all his tastes, flattered his vanity andpassions, and became his bosom friend. He gossiped with him aboutThomas Aquinas, the Indies, and affairs of gallantry. He was a greatrefiner of sensual pleasures, had a passion for magnificence anddisplay, and a real genius for court entertainments. He could eat anddrink with the gayest courtiers, sing merry songs, and join in thedance. He was blunt and frank in his manners; but these only concealedcraft and cunning. "It is art to conceal art, " and Wolsey was a masterof all the tricks of dissimulation. He rose rapidly after he had oncegained the heart of the king. He became successively dean of York, papal legate, cardinal, bishop of Lincoln, archbishop of York, andlord chancellor. He also obtained the administration and thetemporalities of the rich abbey of St. Albans, and of the bishopricsof Bath and Wells, Durham and Winchester. By these gifts, his revenuesalmost equalled those of the crown; and he squandered them in a styleof unparalleled extravagance. He dressed in purple and gold, supporteda train of eight hundred persons, and built Hampton Court. He was thechannel through which the royal favors flowed. But he made a goodchancellor, dispensed justice, repressed the power of the nobles, encouraged and rewarded literary men, and endowed colleges. He was themost magnificent and the most powerful subject that England has everseen. Even nobles were proud to join his train of dependants. Therewas nothing sordid or vulgar, however, in all his ostentation. Henrytook pleasure in his pomp, for it was a reflection of the greatness ofhis own majesty. 

[Sidenote: Magnificence of Henry VIII. ]

The first years of the reign of Henry VIII. , after the battle ofFlodden Field, were spent in pleasure, and in great public displays ofmagnificence, which charmed the people, and made him a popular idol. Among these, the interview of the king with Francis I. Is the mostnoted, on the 4th of June, 1520; the most gorgeous pageant of thesixteenth century, designed by Wolsey, who had a genius for suchthings. The monarchs met in a beautiful valley, where jousts andtournaments were held, and where was exhibited all the magnificencewhich the united resources of France and England could command. Theinterview was sought by Francis to win, through Wolsey, the favor ofthe king, and to counterbalance the advantages which it was supposedCharles V. Had gained on a previous visit to the king at Dover. 

The getting up of the "Field of the Cloth of Gold" created somemurmurs among the English nobility, many of whom were injured by theexpensive tastes of Wolsey. Among these was the Duke of Buckingham, hereditary high constable of England, and connected with the royalhouse of the Plantagenets. Henry, from motives of jealousy, both onaccount of his birth and fortune, had long singled him out as hisvictim. He was, also, obnoxious to Wolsey, since he would not flatterhis pride, and he had, moreover, insulted him. It is very easy for aking to find a pretence for committing a crime; and Buckingham wasarrested, tried, and executed, for making traitorous prophecies. Hisreal crime was in being more powerful than it suited the policy of theking. With the death of Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, in 1521, commenced the bloody cruelty of Henry VIII. 

Soon after the death of Buckingham, the king made himself notoriousfor his theological writings against Luther, whose doctrines hedetested. He ever had a taste for theological disputation, and a loveof the schoolmen. His tracts against Luther, very respectable fortalent and learning, though disgraced by coarse and vulgarvituperation, secured for him the favor of the pope, who bestowed uponhim the title of "Defender of the Faith;" and a strong allianceexisted between them until the divorce of Queen Catharine. 

The difficulties and delays, attending this act of cruelty andinjustice, constitute no small part of the domestic history of Englandduring the reign of Henry VIII. Any event, which furnishes subjects ofuniversal gossip and discussion, is ever worthy of historical notice, inasmuch as it shows prevailing opinions and tastes. 

Queen Catharine, daughter of Ferdinand, King of Spain, was eight yearsolder than her husband, whom she married in the first year of hisreign. She had been previously married to his brother Arthur, who diedof the plague in 1502. For several years after her marriage withHenry VIII. , her domestic happiness was a subject of remark; and theemperor, Charles V. , congratulated her on her brilliant fortune. Shewas beautiful, sincere, accomplished; religious, and disinterested, and every way calculated to secure, as she had won, the king'saffections. 

[Sidenote: Anne Boleyn. ]

But among her maids of honor there was one peculiarly accomplished andfascinating, to whom the king transferred his affections with unwontedvehemence. This was Anne Boleyn, daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, who, from his great wealth, married Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the firstduke of Norfolk. This noble alliance brought Sir Thomas Boleyn intoclose connection with royalty, and led to the appointment of hisdaughter to the high post which she held at the court of QueenCatharine. It is probable that the king suppressed his passion forsome time; and it would have been longer concealed, even from itsobject, had not his jealousy been excited by her attachment to Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland. The king at last made known hispassion; but the daughter of the Howards was too proud, or toopolitic, or too high principled, to listen to his overtures. It wasonly _as queen of England_, that she would return the passion of herroyal lover. Moreover, she resolved to be revenged on the all-powerfulcardinal, for assisting in her separation from Percy, whom she lovedwith romantic attachment. The king waited four years, but Anneremained inflexibly virtuous. He then meditated the divorce fromCatharine, as the only way to accomplish the object which now seemedto animate his existence. He confided the matter to his favoriteminister; but Wolsey was thunderstruck at the disclosure, and remainedwith him four hours on his knees, to dissuade him from a step whichhe justly regarded as madness. Here Wolsey appears as an honest manand a true friend; but royal infatuation knows neither wisdom, justice, nor humanity. Wolsey, as a man of the world, here made ablunder, and departed from the policy he had hitherto pursued--that offlattering the humors of his absolute master. Wolsey, however, recommended the king to consult the divines; for Henry pretended that, after nearly twenty years of married life, he had conscientiousscruples about the lawfulness of his marriage. The learned Englishdoctors were afraid to pronounce their opinions, and suggested areference to the fathers. But the king was not content with theirauthority; he appealed to the pope, and to the decisions of half ofthe universities of Europe. It seems very singular that a sovereign sounprincipled, unscrupulous, and passionate, and yet so absolute andpowerful as was Henry, should have wasted his time and money inseeking countenance to an act on which he was fully determined, andwhich countenance he never could reasonably hope to secure. But hischaracter was made up of contradictions. His caprice, violence, andwant of good faith, were strangely blended with superstition andreverence for the authority of the church. His temper urged him to themost rigorous measure of injustice; and his injustice produced noshame, although he was restrained somewhat by the opinions of the verymen whom he did not hesitate to murder. 

[Sidenote: Queen Catharine. ]

Queen Catharine, besides being a virtuous and excellent woman, waspowerfully allied, and was a zealous Catholic. Her repudiation, therefore, could not take place without offending the very personswhose favor the king was most anxious to conciliate especially theEmperor Charles, her nephew, and the pope, and all the highdignitaries and adherents of the church. Even Wolsey could not inhonor favor the divorce, although it was his policy to do so. Inconsequence of his intrigues, and the scandal and offence sooutrageous an act as the divorce of Catharine must necessarily producethroughout the civilized world, Henry long delayed to bring the matterto a crisis, being afraid of a war with Charles V. , and of theanathemas of the pope. Moreover, he hoped to gain him over, for thepope had sent Cardinal Campeggio to London, to hold, with his legateWolsey, a court to hear the case. But it was the farthest from hisintention to grant the divorce, for the pope was more afraid ofCharles V. Than he was of Henry VIII. 

[Sidenote: Disgrace and Death of Wolsey. ]

The court settled nothing, and the king's wrath now turned towardsWolsey, whom he suspected of secretly thwarting his measures. Theaccomplished courtier, so long accustomed to the smiles and favors ofroyalty, could not bear his disgrace with dignity. The proudest man inEngland became, all at once, the meanest. He wept, he cringed, he losthis spirits; he surrendered his palace, his treasures, his honors, andhis offices, into the hands of him who gave them to him, without asingle expostulation: wrote most abject letters to "his most gracious, most merciful, and most pious sovereign lord;" and died of a brokenheart on his way to a prison and the scaffold. "Had I but served myGod as diligently as I have served the king, he would not have givenme over in my gray hairs"--these were the words of the dying cardinal;his sad confessions on experiencing the vanity of human life. But thevindictive prince suffered no word of sorrow or regret to escape him, when he heard of the death of his prime minister, and his intimatefriend for twenty years. 

[Sidenote: More--Cranmer--Cromwell. ]

Shortly after the disgrace of Wolsey, which happened nearly a yearbefore his death, (1529, ) three remarkable men began to figure inEnglish politics and history. These were Sir Thomas More, ThomasCranmer, and Thomas Cromwell. More was the most accomplished, mostlearned, and most enlightened of the three. He was a Catholic, butvery exemplary in his life, and charitable in his views. In moralelevation of character, and beautiful serenity of soul, the annals ofthe great men of his country furnish no superior. His extensiveerudition and moral integrity alone secured him the official stationwhich Wolsey held as lord chancellor. He was always the intimatefriend of the king, and his conversation, so enlivened by wit, and sorich and varied in matter, caused his society to be universallysought. He discharged his duties with singular conscientiousness andability; and no one ever had cause to complain that justice was notrendered him. 

Cranmer's elevation was owing to a fortunate circumstance, notwithstanding his exalted merit. He happened to say, while tutor toa gentleman of the name of Cressy, in the hearing of Dr. Gardiner, then secretary to Henry, that the proper way to settle the difficultyabout the divorce was, to appeal to learned men, who would settle thematter on the sole authority of the Bible, without reference to thepope. This remark was reported to the king, and Cranmer was sent toreside with the father of Anne Boleyn, and was employed in writing atreatise to support his opinion. His ability led to further honors, until, on the death of Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, he wasappointed to the vacant see, the first office in dignity andimportance in the kingdom, and from which no king, however absolute, could eject him, except by the loss of life. We shall see that, in allmatters of religion, Cranmer was the ruling spirit in England untilthe accession of Mary. 

Cromwell's origin was even more obscure than that of Wolsey's; but hereceived his education at one of the universities. We first hear ofhim as a clerk in an English factory at Antwerp, then as a soldier inthe army of the Constable Bourbon when it sacked Rome, then as a clerkin a mercantile house in Venice, and then again as a lawyer inEngland, where he attracted the attention of Wolsey, who made him hissolicitor, and employed him in the dissolution of monasteries. He thenbecame a member of the house of commons, where his address andbusiness talents were conspicuous. He was well received at court, andconfirmed in the stewardship of the monasteries, after the disgrace ofhis master. His office brought him often into personal conference withthe king; and, at one of these, he recommended him to deny theauthority of the pope altogether, and declare himself supreme head ofthe church. The boldness of this advice was congenial to the temper ofthe king, worried by the opposition of Rome to his intended divorce, and Cromwell became a member of the privy council. His fortune wasthus made by his seasonable advice. All who opposed the king were sureto fall, and all who favored him were sure to rise, as must ever bethe case in an absolute monarchy, where the king is the centre and thefountain of all honor and dignity. 

With such ministers as Cranmer and Cromwell, the measures of Henrywere now prompt and bold. Queen Catharine was soon disposed of; shewas divorced and disgraced, and Anne Boleyn was elevated to herthrone, (1533. ) The anathemas of the pope and the outcry of all Europefollowed. Sir Thomas More resigned the seals, and retired to povertyand solitude. But he was not permitted to enjoy his retirement long. Refusing to take the oath of supremacy to Henry, as head of the churchas well as of the state, he was executed, with other illustriousCatholics. The execution of More was the most cruel and uncalled-foract of the whole reign, and entailed on its author the execrations ofall the learned and virtuous men in Europe, most of whom appreciatedthe transcendent excellences of the murdered chancellor, the author ofthe Utopia, and the Boethius of his age. 

[Sidenote: Quarrel with the Pope. ]

The fulminations of the pope only excited Henry to more decidedopposition. The parliament, controlled by Cromwell, acknowledged himas the supreme head of the Church of England, and the separation fromRome was final and irrevocable. The tenths were annexed to the crown, and the bishops took a new oath of supremacy. 

The independence of the Church of England, effected in 1535, wasfollowed by important consequences, and was the first step to thereformation, afterwards perfected by Edward VI. But as the first actsof the reformation were prompted by political considerations, thereformers in England, during the reign of Henry VIII. , should beconsidered chiefly in a political point of view. The separation fromRome, during the reign of this prince, was not followed by theabolition of the Roman Catholic worship, nor any of the rites andceremonies of that church. Nor was religious toleration secured. Everything was subservient to the royal conscience, and a secular, insteadof an ecclesiastical pope, still reigned in England. 

[Sidenote: Abolition of Monasteries. ]

Henry soon found that his new position, as head of the English Church, imposed new duties and cares: he therefore established a separatedepartment for the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs, over which heplaced the unscrupulous, but energetic Cromwell--a fit minister tosuch a monarch. A layman, who hated the clergy, and who looked solelyto the pecuniary interests of his master, was thus placed over thehighest prelates of the church. But Cromwell, in consulting thepecuniary interests of the king, also had an eye to the politicalinterests of the kingdom. He was a sagacious and practical man of theworld, and was disgusted with the vices of the clergy, and especiallywith the custom of sending money to Rome, in the shape of annates andtaxes. This evil he remedied, which tended greatly to enrich thecountry, for the popes at this time were peculiarly extortionate. Hethen turned his attention to the reform of the whole monasticinstitution, but with an eye also to its entire destruction. Cromwellhated the monks. They were lazy, ignorant, and debauched. They were agreat burden on the people, and were as insolent and proud as theywere idle and profligate. The country swarmed with them. The roads, taverns, and the houses of the credulous were infested with them. Cranmer, who sympathized with the German reformers, hated them onreligious grounds, and readily coöperated with Cromwell; while theking, whose extortion and rapacity knew no bounds, listened, withglistening eye, to the suggestions of his two favorite ministers. Thenation was suddenly astounded with the intelligence that parliamenthad passed a bill, giving to the king and his heirs all the monasticestablishments in the kingdom, which did not exceed two hundred poundsa year. Three hundred and eighty thus fell at a blow, whereby the kingwas enriched by thirty-two thousand pounds a year, and one hundredthousand pounds ready money--an immense sum in that age. By thisspoliation, perhaps called for, but exceedingly unjust and harsh, andin violation of all the rights of property, thousands were reduced tobeggary and misery, while there was scarcely an eminent man in thekingdom who did not come in for a share of the plunder. Vast grants oflands were bestowed by the king on his favorites and courtiers, inorder to appease the nation; and thus the foundations of many of thegreat estates of the English nobility were laid. The spoliations, however, led to many serious riots and insurrections, especially inLincolnshire. At one place there were forty thousand rebels underarms; but they were easily suppressed. 

[Sidenote: Suppression of Monasteries. ]

The rapacious king was not satisfied with the plunder he had secured, and, in 1539, the final suppression of all the monasteries in Englandwas decreed. Then followed the seizure of all the church property inEngland connected with monasteries--shrines, relics, gold and silvervessels of immense value and rarity, lands, and churches. Canterbury, Bath, Merton, Stratford, Bury St. Edmonds, Glastonbury, and St. Albans, suffered most, and many of those beautiful monuments of Gothicarchitecture were levelled with the dust. Their destruction deprivedthe people of many physical accommodations, for they had beenhospitals and caravansaries, as well as "cages of unclean birds. "Neither the church nor the universities profited much from theconfiscation of so much property, and only six new bishoprics wereformed, and only fourteen abbeys were converted into cathedrals andcollegiate churches. The king and the nobles were the only gainers bythe spoil; the people obtained no advantage in that age, although theyhave in succeeding ages. 

After renouncing the pope's supremacy, and suppressing themonasteries, where were collected the treasures of the middle ages, one would naturally suppose that the king would have gone farther, andchanged the religion of his people. But Henry hated Luther and hisdoctrines, and did not hate the pope, or the religion of which he wasthe sovereign pontiff. He loved gold and new wives better than theinterests of the Catholic church. Reform proceeded no farther in hisreign; while, on the other hand, he caused a decree to pass bothhouses of his timid, complying parliament, by which the doctrines oftransubstantiation, the communion of one kind, the celibacy of theclergy, masses, and auricular confession, were established; and anydeparture from, or denial of, these subjected the offender to thepunishment of death. 

[Sidenote: Execution of Anne Boleyn. ]

But Henry had new domestic difficulties long before the suppression ofmonasteries--the great political act of Thomas Cromwell. His new wife, Anne Boleyn, was suspected of the crime of inconstancy, and at thevery time when she had reached the summit of power, and thegratification of all worldly wishes. She had been very vain, and fondof display and of ornaments; but the latter years of her life weremarked by her munificence, and attachment to the reform doctrines. Buther power ceased almost as soon as she became queen. She could win, but she could not retain, the affections of her royal husband. Hispassion subsided into languor, and ended in disgust. The beauty ofAnne Boleyn was soon forgotten when Jane Seymour, her maid of honor, attracted the attention of Henry. To make this lady his wife nowbecame the object of his life, and this could only be effected by thedivorce of his queen, who gave occasion for scandal by the levity andfreedom of her manners. Henry believed every insinuation against her, because he wished to believe her guilty. There was but a step betweenthe belief of guilt and the resolution to destroy her. She wascommitted to the Tower, impeached, brought to trial, condemned withoutevidence, and executed without remorse. Even Cranmer, whom she hadhonored and befriended, dared not defend her, although he must havebelieved in her innocence. He knew the temper of the master whom heserved too well to risk much in her defence. She was the first womanwho had been beheaded in the annals of England. Not one of thePlantagenet kings ever murdered a woman. But the age of chivalry waspast, and the sentiments it encouraged found no response in the bosomof such a sensual and vindictive monarch as was Henry VIII. 

The very day after the execution of that accomplished lady, for whosesake the king had squandered the treasures of his kingdom, and hadkept Christendom in a ferment, he married Jane Seymour, "the fairest, discreetest, and most meritorious of all his wives, " as the historianssay, yet a woman who did not hesitate to steal the affections of Henryand receive his addresses, while his queen was devoted to her husband. But Anne Boleyn had done so before her, and suffered a naturalretribution. 

Jane Seymour lived only eighteen months after her marriage, and diedtwo days after giving birth to a son, afterwards Edward VI. She wasone of those passive women who make neither friends nor enemies. Sheindulged in no wit or repartee, like her brilliant but less beautifulpredecessor, and she passed her regal life without uttering a sentenceor a sentiment which has been deemed worthy of preservation. 

[Sidenote: Anne of Cleves--Catharine Howard. ]

She had been dead about a month, when the king looked round foranother wife, and besought Francis I. To send the most beautifulladies of his kingdom to Calais, that he might there inspect them, andselect one according to his taste. But this Oriental notion was notindulged by the French king, who had more taste and delicacy; andHenry remained without a wife for more than two years, the princessesof Europe not being very eager to put themselves in the power of thisroyal Bluebeard. At last, at the suggestion of Cromwell, he wasaffianced to Anne, daughter of the Duke of Cleves, whose home was onthe banks of the Rhine, in the city of Dusseldorf. 

The king no sooner set his eyes on her than he was disappointed anddisgusted, and gave vent to his feelings before Cromwell, calling hera "great Flanders mare. " Nevertheless, he consummated his marriage, although his disgust constantly increased. This mistake of Cromwellwas fatal to his ambitious hopes. The king vented on him all thedispleasure which had been gathering in his embittered soul. Cromwell's doom was sealed. He had offended an absolute monarch. Hewas accused of heresy and treason, --the common accusations in that ageagainst men devoted to destruction, --tried by a servile board ofjudges, condemned, and judicially murdered, in 1540. In hismisfortunes, he showed no more fortitude than Wolsey. The atmosphereof a court is fatal to all moral elevation. 

But, before his execution, Anne of Cleves, a virtuous and worthywoman, was divorced, and Catharine Howard, granddaughter of the victorof Flodden Field, became queen of England. The king now fancied thathis domestic felicity was complete; but, soon after his marriage, itwas discovered that his wife had formerly led a dissolute life, andhad been unfaithful also to her royal master. When the proofs of herincontinence were presented to him, he burst into a flood of tears;but soon his natural ferocity returned, and his guilty wife expiatedher crime by death on the scaffold, in 1542. 

Henry's sixth and last wife was Catharine Parr, relict of LordLatimer, a woman of great sagacity, prudence, and good sense. Shefavored the reformers, but had sufficient address to keep her opinionsfrom the king, who would have executed her, had he suspected her realviews. She survived her husband, who died four years after hermarriage, in 1547. 

[Sidenote: Last Days of Henry. ]

The last years of any tyrant are always melancholy, and those of Henrywere embittered by jealousies and domestic troubles. His finances werederanged, his treasury exhausted, and his subjects discontented. Hewas often at war with the Scots, and different continental powers. Headded religious persecution to his other bad traits, and executed, fortheir opinions, some of the best people in the kingdom. His father hadleft him the richest sovereign of Europe, and he had seized the abbeylands, and extorted heavy sums from his oppressed people; and yet hewas poor. All his wishes were apparently gratified; and yet he was themost miserable man in his dominions. He exhausted all the sources ofpleasure, and nothing remained but satiety and disgust. His mind andhis body were alike diseased. His inordinate gluttony made him mostinconveniently corpulent, and produced ulcers and the gout. It wasdangerous to approach this "corrupt mass of dying tyranny. " It wasimpossible to please him, and the least contradiction drove him intofits of madness and frenzy. 

In his latter days, he ordered, in a fit of jealousy, the execution ofthe Duke of Norfolk, the first nobleman of the kingdom, who had givenoffence to the Earl of Hertford, uncle to the young prince of Wales, and the founder of the greatness of the Seymours. But the tyrant diedbefore the sentence was carried into effect, much to the joy of thegood people of England, whom he had robbed and massacred. Severalthousands perished by the axe of the executioner during hisdisgraceful reign, and some of them were the lights of the age, andthe glory of their country. 

Tyrannical as was Henry VIII. , still he ever ruled by the laws. He didnot abolish parliament, or retrench its privileges. The parliamentauthorized all his taxes, and gave sanction to all his violentmeasures. The parliament was his supple instrument; still, had theparliament resisted his will, doubtless he would have dissolved it, asdid the Stuart princes. But it was not, in his reign, prepared forresistance, and the king had every thing after his own way. 

[Sidenote: Death of Henry VIII. ]

By nature, he was amiable, generous, and munificent. But his temperwas spoiled by self-indulgence and incessant flattery. The morosenesshe exhibited in his latter days was partly the effect of physicaldisease, brought about, indeed, by intemperance and gluttony. He wasfaithful to his wives, so long as he lived with them; and, while hedoted on them, listened to their advice. But few of his advisers daredtell him the truth; and Cranmer himself can never be exculpated fromflattering his perverted conscience. No one had the courage to tellhim he was dying but one of the nobles of the court. He died, in greatagony, June, 1547, in the thirty-eighth year of his reign, and thefifty-sixth of his age, and was buried, with great pomp, in St. GeorgeChapel, Windsor Castle. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The best English histories of the reign of Henry VIII. Are the standard ones of Hume and Lingard. The Pictorial History, in spite of its pictures, is also excellent. Burnet should be consulted in reference to ecclesiastical matters, and Hallam, in reference to the constitution. See also the lives of Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, and Cranmer. The lives of Henry's queens have been best narrated by Agnes Strickland. 

CHAPTER V. 

EDWARD VI. AND MARY. 

[Sidenote: War with Scotland. ]

Henry VIII. Was succeeded by his son, Edward VI. , a boy of nine yearsof age, learned, pious, and precocious. Still he was a boy; and, assuch, was a king but in name. The history of his reign is the historyof the acts of his ministers. 

The late king left a will, appointing sixteen persons, mostly membersof his council, to be guardians of his son, and rulers of the nationduring his minority. The Earl of Hertford, being uncle of the king, was unanimously named protector. 

The first thing the council did was to look after themselves, that is, to give themselves titles and revenues. Hertford became Duke ofSomerset; Essex, Marquis of Northampton; Lisle, Earl of Warwick; theChancellor Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. At the head of thesenobles was Somerset. He was a Protestant, and therefore prosecutedthose reforms which Cranmer had before projected. Cranmer, as memberof the council, archbishop of Canterbury, and friend of Somerset, hadample scope to prosecute his measures. 

The history of this reign is not important in a political point ofview, and relates chiefly to the completion of the reformation, and tothe squabbles and jealousies of the great lords who formed the councilof regency. 

The most important event, of a political character, was a war withScotland, growing out of the attempts of the late king to unite bothnations under one government. In consequence, Scotland was invaded bythe Duke of Somerset, at the head of eighteen thousand men. A greatbattle was fought, in which ten thousand of the Scots were slain. Butthe protector was compelled to return to England, without following upthe fruits of victory, in consequence of cabals at court. His brother, Lord Seymour, a man of reckless ambition, had married the queendowager, and openly aspired to the government of the kingdom. Heendeavored to seduce the youthful king, and he had provided arms forten thousand men. 

The protector sought to win his brother from his treasonable designsby kindness and favors; but, all his measures proving ineffectual, hewas arrested, tried, and executed, for high treason. 

[Sidenote: Rebellions and Discontents. ]

But Somerset had a more dangerous enemy than his brother; and this wasthe Earl of Warwick, who obtained great popularity by his suppressionof a dangerous insurrection, the greatest the country had witnessedsince Jack Cade's rebellion, one hundred years before. The discontentof the people appears to have arisen from their actual suffering. Coinhad depreciated, without a corresponding rise of wages, and labor wascheap, because tillage lands were converted to pasturage. The populardiscontent was aggravated by the changes which the reformersintroduced, and which the peasantry were the last to appreciate. Thepriests and ejected monks increased the discontent, until it broke outinto a flame. 

The protector made himself unpopular with the council by a law whichhe caused to be passed against enclosures; and, as he lost influence, his great rival, Warwick, gained power. Somerset, at last, was obligedto resign his protectorship; and Warwick, who had suppressed therebellion, formed the chief of a new council of regency. He was a manof greater talents than Somerset, and equal ambition, and more fittedfor stormy times. 

As soon as his power was established, and the country was at peace, and he had gained friends, he began to execute those projects ofambition which he had long formed. The earldom of Northumberlandhaving reverted to the crown, Warwick aspired to the extinct title andthe estates, and procured for himself a grant of the same, with thetitle of duke. But there still remained a bar to his elevation; andthis was the opposition of the Duke of Somerset, who, though disgracedand unpopular, was still powerful. It is unfortunate to be in the wayof a great man's career, and Somerset paid the penalty of hisopposition--the common fate of unsuccessful rivals in unsettled times. He was accused of treason, condemned, and executed, (1552. )

[Sidenote: Rivalry of the Great Nobles. ]

Northumberland, as the new dictator, seemed to have attained thehighest elevation to which a subject could aspire. In rank, power, andproperty, he was second only to the royal family, but his ambitionknew no bounds, and he began his intrigues to induce the young king, whose health was rapidly failing, and who was zealously attached toProtestantism, to set aside the succession of his sister Mary to thethrone, really in view of the danger to which the reformers would besubjected, but under pretence of her declared illegitimacy, whichwould also set aside the claims of the Princess Elizabeth. Mary, Queenof Scots, was to be set aside on the ground of the will of the lateking, and the succession would therefore devolve on the Lady JaneGrey, granddaughter of the Duke of Suffolk and of the French queen, whom he hoped to unite in marriage with his son. This was adeeply-laid scheme, and came near being successful, since Edwardlistened to it with pleasure. Northumberland then sought to gain overthe judges and other persons of distinction, and succeeded by briberyand intimidation. At this juncture, the young king died, possessed ofall the accomplishments which could grace a youth of sixteen, butstill a tool in the hands of his ministers. 

[Sidenote: Religious Reforms. ]

Such were the political movements of this reign--memorable for therivalries of the great nobles. But it is chiefly distinguished for thechanges which were made in the church establishment, and theintroduction of the principles of the continental reformers. Nochanges of importance were ever made beyond what Cranmer and hisassociates effected. Indeed, all that an absolute monarch could do, was done, and done with prudence, sagacity, and moderation. The peoplequietly--except in some rural districts--acquiesced in the change. Most of the clergy took the new oath of allegiance to Edward VI. , assupreme head of the church; and very few suffered from religiouspersecution. There is no period in English history when such importantchanges were made, with so little bloodshed. Cranmer always watchedthe temper of the nation, and did nothing without great caution. Stilla great change was effected--no less than a complete change fromRomanism to Protestantism. But it was not so radical a reform as thePuritans subsequently desired, since the hierarchy and a liturgy, andclerical badges and dresses, were retained. It was the fortune ofCranmer, during the six years of Edward's reign, to effect the twogreat objects of which the English church has ever since beenproud--the removal of Roman abuses, and the establishment of the creedof Luther and Calvin; and this without sweeping away the union ofchurch and state, which, indeed, was more intimate than before thereformation. The papal power was completely subverted. Nothing moreremained to be done by Cranmer. He had compiled the Book of CommonPrayer, abolished the old Latin service, the worship of images, theceremony of the mass, and auricular confessions. He turned the altarsinto communion tables, set up the singing of psalms in the service, caused the communion to be administered in both kinds to the laity, added the litany to the ritual, prepared a book of homilies for theclergy, invited learned men to settle in England, and magnificentlyendowed schools and universities. 

The Reformation is divested of much interest, since it was the work of_authority_, rather than the result of _popular convictions_. ButCranmer won immortal honor for his skilful management, and for makingno more changes than he could sustain. A large part of the Englishnation still regard his works as perfect, and are sincerely andenthusiastically attached to the form which he gave to his church. 

The hopes of his party were suddenly dispelled by the death of theamiable prince whom he controlled, 6th of July, 1553. The successionto the throne fell to the Princess Mary, or, as princesses were thencalled, the _Lady_ Mary; nor could all the arts of Northumberlandexclude her from the enjoyment of her rights. This ambitious noblemancontrived to keep the death of Edward VI. A secret two days, andsecure from the Mayor and Alderman of London a promise to respect thewill of the late king. In consequence, the Lady Jane Grey wasproclaimed Queen of England. "So far was she from any desire of thisadvancement, that she began to act her part of royalty with manytears, thus plainly showing to those who had access to her, that shewas forced by her relations and friends to this high, but dangerouspost. " She was accomplished, beautiful, and amiable, devoted to heryoung husband, and very fond of Plato, whom she read in the original. 

[Sidenote: Execution of Northumberland. ]

But Mary's friends exerted themselves, and her cause--the cause oflegitimacy, rather than that of Catholicism--gained ground. Northumberland was unequal to this crisis, and he was very feeblysustained. His forces were suppressed, his schemes failed, and hishopes fled. From rebellion, to the scaffold, there is but a step; andthis great nobleman suffered the fate of Somerset, his former rival. His execution confirms one of the most striking facts in the historyof absolute monarchies, when the idea of legitimacy is firmlyimpressed on the national mind; and that is, that no subject, orconfederacy of subjects, however powerful, stand much chance inresisting the claims or the will of a legitimate prince. A nod or aword, from such a king, can consign the greatest noble to hopelessimpotence. And he can do this from the mighty and mysterious force ofideas alone. Neither king nor parliament can ever resist theomnipotence of popular ideas. When ideas establish despots on theirthrones, they are safe. When ideas demand their dethronement, noforces can long sustain them. The age of Queen Mary was the period ofthe most unchecked absolutism in England. Mary was apparently apowerless woman when Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen by the partyof Northumberland, and still she had but to signify her intentions toclaim her rights, and the nation was prostrate at her feet. TheProtestant party dreaded her accession; but loyalty was a strongerprinciple than even Protestantism, and she was soon firmly establishedin the absolute throne of Henry VIII. 

Then almost immediately followed a total change in the administration, which affected both the political and religious state of the country. Those who had languished in confinement, on account of their religion, obtained their liberty, and were elevated to power. Gardiner, Bonner, and other Catholic bishops, were restored to their sees, whileCranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper Coverdale, and other eminentProtestants, were imprisoned. All the statutes of Edward VI. Pertaining to religion were repealed, and the queen sent assurances tothe pope of her allegiance to his see. Cardinal Pole, descended fromthe royal family of England, and a man of great probity, moderation, and worth, was sent as legate of the pope. Gardiner, Bishop ofWinchester, was made lord chancellor, and became the prime minister. He and his associates recommended violent councils; and a reign, unparalleled in England for religious persecution, commenced. 

[Sidenote: Marriage of the Queen. ]

Soon after the queen's accession, she married Philip, son of theEmperor Charles, and heir of the Spanish monarchy. This marriage, brought about by the intrigues of the emperor, and favored by theCatholic party, was quite acceptable to Mary, whose issue wouldinherit the thrones of Spain and England. But ambitious matches areseldom happy, especially when the wife is much older than the husband, as was the fact in this instance. Mary, however, was attached toPhilip, although he treated her with great indifference. 

This Spanish match, the most brilliant of that age, failed, however, to satisfy the English, who had no notion of becoming the subjects ofthe King of Spain. In consequence of this disaffection, a rebellionbroke out, in which Sir Thomas Wyatt was the most conspicuous, and inwhich the Duke of Suffolk, and even the Lady Jane and her husband, were implicated, though unjustly. The rebellion was easily suppressed, and the leaders sent to the Tower. Then followed one of the mostmelancholy executions of this reign--that of the Lady Jane Grey, whohad been reprieved three months before. The queen urged the plea ofself-defence, and the safety of the realm--the same that QueenElizabeth, in after times, made in reference to the Queen of theScots. Her unfortunate fate excited great popular compassion, and shesuffered with a martyr's constancy, and also her husband--twoillustrious victims, sacrificed in consequence of the ambition oftheir relatives, and the jealousy of the queen. The Duke of Suffolk, the father of Lady Jane, was also executed, and deserved his fate, according to the ideas of his age. The Princess Elizabeth expectedalso to be sacrificed, both because she was a Protestant and the nextheiress to the throne. But she carefully avoided giving any offence, and managed with such consummate prudence, that she was preserved forthe future glory and welfare of the realm. 

[Sidenote: Religious Persecution. ]

The year 1555 opened gloomily for the Protestants. The prisons wereall crowded with the victims of religious persecution, and bigotedinquisitors had only to prepare their fagots and stakes. Over athousand ministers were ejected from their livings, and such asescaped further persecution fled to the continent. No fewer than twohundred and eighty-eight persons, among whom were five bishops, twenty-one clergymen, fifty-five women, and four children, were burnedfor religious opinions, besides many thousands who suffered variousother forms of persecution. The constancy of Ridley, Latimer, andHooper has immortalized their names on the list of illustriousmartyrs: but the greatest of all the victims was Cranmer, Archbishopof Canterbury. The most artful and insinuating promises were held outto him, to induce him to retract. Life and dignities were promisedhim, if he would consent to betray his cause. In an evil hour, heyielded to the temptation, and consented to sell his soul. Timid, heartbroken, and old, the love of life and the fear of death werestronger than the voice of conscience and his duty to his God. But, when he found he was mocked, he came to himself, and sufferedpatiently and heroically. His death was glorious, as his life wasuseful; and the sincerity of his repentance redeemed his memory fromshame. Cranmer may be considered as the great author of the EnglishReformation, and one of the most worthy and enlightened men of hisage; but he was timid, politic, and time-serving. The Reformationproduced no perfect characters in any country. Some great defectblemished the lives of all the illustrious men who have justly earnedimperishable glory. But the character of such men as Cranmer, andRidley, and Latimer, present an interesting contrast to those ofGardiner and Bonner. The former did show, however, some lenity in thelatter years of this reign of Mary; but the latter, the Bishop ofLondon, gloated to the last in the blood which he caused to be shed. He even whipped the Protestant prisoners with his own hands, and oncepulled out the beard of an heretical weaver, and held his finger inthe flame of a candle, till the veins shrunk and burnt, that he mightrealize what the pain of burning was. So blind and cruel is religiousintolerance. 

But Providence ordered that the religious persecution, which isattributed to Mary, but which, in strict justice, should be ascribedto her counsellors and ministers, should prepare the way for a popularand a spiritual movement in the subsequent reign. The fires ofSmithfield, and the cruelties of the pillory and the prison, openedthe eyes of the nation to the spirit of the old religion, and alsocaused the flight of many distinguished men to Frankfort and Geneva, where they learned the principles of both religious and civil liberty. "The blood of martyrs proved the seed of the church"--a sublime truth, revealed to Cranmer and Ridley amid the fires which consumed theirvenerable bodies; and not to them merely, but to all who witnessedtheir serenity, and heard their shouts of triumph when this mortalpassed to immortality. Heretics increased with the progress ofpersecution, and firm conviction took the place of a blind confessionof dogmas. "It was not, " says Milman, "until Christ was lain in hisrock-hewn sepulchre, that the history of Christianity commenced. " Wemight add, it was not until the fires of Smithfield were lighted, thatgreat spiritual ideas took hold of the popular mind, and the intensereligious earnestness appeared which has so often characterized theEnglish nation. The progress which man makes is generally seen throughdisaster, suffering, and sorrow. This is one of the fundamental truthswhich history teaches. 

[Sidenote: Character of Mary. ]

The last years of the reign of Mary were miserable to herself, anddisastrous to the nation. Her royal husband did not return her warmaffections, and left England forever. She embarked in a ruinous warwith France, and gained nothing but disgrace. Her health failed, andher disposition became gloomy. She continued, to the last, mostintolerant in her religious opinions, and thought more of restoringRomanism, than of promoting the interests of her kingdom. Her heartwas bruised and broken, and her life was a succession of sorrows. Itis fashionable to call this unfortunate queen the "bloody Mary, " andnot allow her a single virtue; but she was affectionate, sincere, high-minded, and shrunk from the dissimulation and intrigue whichcharacterized "the virgin queen"--the name given to her masculine butenergetic successor. Mary was capable of the warmest friendship; wasattentive and considerate to her servants, charitable to the poor, andsympathetic with the unfortunate, when not blinded by her religiousprejudices. She had many accomplishments, and a very severe taste, andwas not addicted to oaths, as was Queen Elizabeth and her royalfather. She was, however, a bigoted Catholic; and how could partisanhistorians see or acknowledge her merits?

[Sidenote: Accession of Elizabeth. ]

But her reign was disastrous, and the nation hailed with enthusiasmthe accession of Elizabeth, on the 17th of November, 1558. With herreign commences a new epoch, even in the history of Europe. Who doesnot talk of the Elizabethan era, when Protestantism was established inEngland, when illustrious poets and philosophers adorned theliterature of the country, when commerce and arts received a greatimpulse, when the colonies in North America were settled, and when aconstellation of great statesmen raised England to a pitch of glorynot before attained?

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --See Hume's, and Lingard's, and other standard Histories of England; Miss Strickland's Lives of the Queens of England; Burnet's History of the Reformation; Life of Cranmer; Fox's Book of Martyrs. These works contain all the easily-accessible information respecting the reigns of Edward and Mary, which is important. 

CHAPTER VI. 

ELIZABETH. 

Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII. , by Anne Boleyn, was in hertwenty-sixth year when she ascended the throne. She was crowned the15th of June, 1559, and soon assembled her parliament and selected herministers. After establishing her own legitimacy, she set aboutsettling the affairs of the church, but only restored the Protestantreligion as Cranmer had left it. Indeed, she ever retained a fondnessfor ceremonial, and abhorred a reform spirit among the people. Sheinsisted on her supremacy, as head of the church, and on conformitywith her royal conscience. But she was not severe on the Catholics, and even the gluttonous and vindictive Bonner was permitted to end hisdays in peace. 

As soon as the Protestant religion was established, the queen turnedher attention towards Scotland, from which much trouble was expected. 

[Sidenote: Mary, Queen of Scots. ]

Scotland was then governed by Mary, daughter of James V. , and hadsucceeded her father while a mere infant, eight days after her birth, (1542. ) In 1558, she married the dauphin, afterwards King of France, by which marriage she was Queen of France as well as of Scotland. 

[Sidenote: John Knox. ]

According to every canonical law of the Roman church, the claim ofMary Stuart to the English throne was preferable to that of her cousinElizabeth. Her uncles, the Guises, represented that Anne Boleyn'smarriage had never been lawful, and that Elizabeth was thereforeillegitimate. In an evil hour, she and her husband quartered the armsof England with their own, and assumed the titles of King and Queen ofScotland and England. And Elizabeth's indignation was further excitedby the insult which the pope had inflicted, in declaring her birthillegitimate. She, therefore, resolved to gratify, at once, both herambition and her vengeance, encouraged by her ministers, who wished toadvance the Protestant interest in the kingdom. Accordingly, Elizabeth, with consummate art, undermined the authority of Mary inScotland, now distracted by religious as well as civil commotions. Mary was a Catholic, and had a perfect abhorrence and disgust of theopinions and customs of the reformers, especially of John Knox, whoseinfluence in Scotland was almost druidical. The Catholics resolved topunish with fire and sword, while the Protestants were equally intenton defending themselves with the sword. And it so happened that someof the most powerful of the nobility were arrayed on the side ofProtestantism. But the Scotch reformers were animated with a zealunknown to Cranmer and his associates. The leaders had been trained atGeneva, under the guidance of Calvin, and had imbibed his opinions, and were, therefore, resolved to carry the work of reform after themodel of the Genevan church. Accordingly, those pictures, and statues, and ornaments, and painted glass, and cathedrals, which Cranmerspared, were furiously destroyed by the Scotch reformers, whoconsidered them as parts of an idolatrous worship. The antipathy tobishops and clerical vestments was equally strong, and a sweepingreform was carried on under the dictatorship of Knox. Elizabeth had nomore sympathy with this bold, but uncouth, reformer and his movements, than had Mary herself, and never could forgive him for his book, written at Geneva, aimed against female government, called the "FirstBlast of a Trumpet against the monstrous Regiment of Women. " But Knoxcared not for either the English or the Scottish queens, and zealouslyand fearlessly prosecuted his work, and gained over to his side themoral strength of the kingdom. Of course, a Catholic queen resolved tosuppress his doctrines; but nearly the whole Scottish nobility ralliedaround his standard, marching with the Bible in one hand, and thesword in the other. The queen brought in troops from France to supporther insulted and tottering government, which only increased the zealof the Protestant party, headed by the Earls of Argyle, Arran, Morton, and Glencairn, and James Stuart, Prior of St. Andrews, who styledthemselves "Lords of the Congregation. " A civil war now raged inScotland, between the queen regent, who wished to suppress thenational independence, and extinguish the Protestant religion, and theProtestants, who comprised a great part of the nation, and who wereresolved on the utter extirpation of Romanism and the limitation ofthe regal power. The Lords of the Congregation implored the aid ofEngland, which Elizabeth was ready to grant, both from political andreligious motives. The Protestant cause was in the ascendant, when thequeen regent died, in 1560. The same year died Francis II. , of France;and Mary, now a widow, resolved to return to her own kingdom. Shelanded at Leith, August, 1561, and was received with the grandestdemonstration of joy. For a time, affairs were tolerably tranquil, Mary having intrusted the great Protestant nobles with power. She wasgreatly annoyed, however, by Knox, who did not treat her with therespect due to a queen, and who called her Jezebel; but the reformerescaped punishment on account of his great power. 

[Sidenote: Marriage of Mary--Darnley. ]

In 1565, Mary married her cousin, Lord Darnley, son of the Earl ofLennox, --a match exceedingly distasteful to Elizabeth, who was everjealous of Mary, especially in matrimonial matters, since the Scottishqueen had not renounced her pretensions to the throne of hergrandfather, Henry VII. The character of Elizabeth now appears in itsworst light; and meanness and jealousy took the place of thatmagnanimity which her admirers have ascribed to her. She fomenteddisturbances in Scotland, and incited the queen's natural brother, thePrior of St. Andrews, now Earl of Murray, to rebellion, with theexpectation of obtaining the government of the country. He formed aconspiracy to seize the persons of Mary and her husband. The plot wasdiscovered, and Murray fled to England; but it was still unremittinglypursued, till at length it was accomplished. 

Darnley, the consort of Mary, was a man of low tastes, profligatehabits, and shallow understanding. Such a man could not long retainthe affections of the most accomplished woman of her age, accustomedto flattery, and bent on pursuing her own pleasure, at any cost. Disgust and coldness therefore took place. Darnley, enraged at thisincreasing coldness, was taught to believe that he was supplanted inthe queen's affections by an Italian favorite, the musician Rizzio, whom Mary had made her secretary. He therefore signed a bond, withcertain lords, for the murder of the Italian, who seems to have been aman of no character. One evening, as the queen was at supper, in herprivate apartment, with the countess of Argyle and Rizzio, the Earl ofMorton, with one hundred and sixty men, took possession of the palaceof Holyrood, while Darnley himself showed the way to a band ofruffians to the royal presence. Rizzio was barbarously murdered in thepresence of the queen, who endeavored to protect him. 

Darnley, in thus perpetrating this shocking murder, was but the toolof some of the great lords, who wished to make him hateful to thequeen, and to the nation, and thus prepare the way for his ownexecution. And they succeeded. A plot was contrived for the murder ofDarnley, of which Murray was probably the author. Shortly after, thehouse, in which he slept, was blown up by gunpowder, in the middle ofthe night. 

[Sidenote: Bothwell--Civil War in Scotland. ]

The public voice imputed to the Earl of Bothwell, a great favorite ofthe queen, the murder of Darnley. Nor did the queen herself escapesuspicion. "But no inquiry or research, " says Scott, "has ever beenable to bring us either to that clear opinion upon the guilt of Marywhich is expressed by many authors, or guide us to that triumphantconclusion in favor of her innocence of all accession, direct ortacit, to the death of her husband, which others have maintained withthe same obstinacy. " But whatever doubt exists as to the queen'sguilt, there is none respecting her ministers--Maitland, Huntley, Morton, and Argyle. Still they offered a reward of two thousand poundsfor the discovery of the murderers. The public voice accused Bothwellas the principal: and yet the ministers associated with him, and thequeen, entirely exculpated him. He was brought to a trial, on theformal accusation of the Earl of Lennox, in the city of Edinburgh, which he was permitted to obtain possession of. In a place guarded byhis own followers, it was not safe for any witnesses to appear againsthim, and he was therefore acquitted, though the whole nation believedhim guilty. 

Mary was rash enough to marry, shortly after, the man whom publicopinion pronounced to be the murderer of her husband; and Murray, herbrother, was so ambitious and treacherous, as to favor the marriage, with the hope that the unpopularity of the act would lead to thedestruction of the queen, and place him at the helm of state. Nosooner was Mary married to Bothwell, than Murray and other lords threwoff the mask, pretended to be terribly indignant, took up arms againstthe queen, with the view of making her prisoner, and with the pretenceof delivering her from her husband. Bothwell escaped to Norway, andthe queen surrendered herself, at Carberry Hill, to the insurgentarmy, the chiefs of which instantly assumed the reins of government, and confined the queen in the castle of Lochleven, and treated herwith excessive harshness. Shortly after, (1567, ) she resigned hercrown to her infant son, and Murray, the prime mover of so manydisturbances, became regent of the kingdom. Murray was a zealousProtestant, and had the support of Knox in all his measures, and thecountenance of the English ministry. Abating his intrigue andambition, he was a most estimable man, and deserved the affections ofthe nation, which he retained until his death. M'Crie, in his Life ofKnox, represents him as a model of Christian virtue and integrity, andevery way worthy of the place he held in the affections of his party. 

[Sidenote: Captivity of Queen Mary. ]

The unfortunate queen suffered great unkindness in her lonelyconfinement, and Knox, with the more zealous of his party, clamoredfor her death, as an adulteress and a murderer. She succeeded inescaping from her prison, raised an army, marched against the regent, was defeated at the battle of Langside, fled to England, and became, May, 1568, the prisoner-guest of her envious rival. Elizabeth obtainedthe object of her desires. But the captivity of Mary, confined inTutbury Castle, against all the laws of hospitality and justice, gaverise to incessant disturbances, both in England and Scotland, untilher execution, in 1587. And these form no inconsiderable part of thehistory of England for seventeen years. Scotland was the scene ofanarchy, growing out of the contentions and jealousies of rivalchieftains, who stooped to every crime that appeared to facilitatetheir objects. In 1570, the regent Murray was assassinated. He wassucceeded by his enemy, the Earl of Lennox, who, in his turn, was shotby an assassin. The Earl of Mar succeeded him, but lived only a year. Morton became regent, the reward of his many crimes but retribution atlast overtook him, being executed when James assumed the sovereignty. 

[Sidenote: Execution of Mary. ]

Meanwhile, the unfortunate Mary pined in hopeless captivity. It wasnatural for her to seek release, and also for her friends to help her. Among her friends was the Duke of Norfolk, the first nobleman inEngland, and a zealous Catholic. He aspired to her hand; but Elizabethchose to consider his courtship as a treasonable act, and Norfolk wasarrested. On being afterwards released, he plotted for the liberationof Mary, and his intrigues brought him to the block. The unfortunatecaptive, wearied and impatient, naturally sought the assistance offoreign powers. She had her agents in Rome, France, Spain, and the LowCountries. The Catholics in England espoused her cause, and aconspiracy was formed to deliver her, assassinate Elizabeth, andrestore the Catholic religion. From the fact that Mary was privy tothat part of it which concerned her own deliverance, she was broughtto trial as a criminal, found guilty by a court incompetent to sit onher case, and executed without remorse, 8th February, 1587. 

Few persons have excited more commiseration than this unfortunatequeen, both on account of her exalted rank, and her splendidintellectual accomplishments. Whatever obloquy she merited for heracts as queen of Scotland, no one can blame her for meditating escapefrom the power of her zealous but more fortunate rival; and herexecution is the greatest blot in the character of the queen ofEngland, at this time in the zenith of her glory. 

Next to the troubles with Scotland growing out of the interference ofElizabeth, the great political events of the reign were the long andprotracted war with Spain, and the Irish rebellion. Both of theseevents were important. 

Spain was at this time governed by Philip II. , son of the emperorCharles, one of the most bigoted Catholics of the age, and allied withCatharine de Medicis of France for the entire suppression ofProtestantism. She incited her son Charles IX. To the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and Philip established the inquisition in Flanders. Thismeasure provoked an insurrection, to suppress which the Duke of Alva, one of the most celebrated of the generals of Charles V. , was sentinto the Netherlands with a large army, and almost unlimited powers. The cruelties of Alva were unparalleled. In six years, eighteenthousand persons perished by the hands of the executioner, and Alvacounted on the entire suppression of Protestantism by the mere forceof armies. He could count the physical resources of the people, but hecould not estimate the degree of their resistance when animated by thespirit of liberty or religion. Providence, too, takes care of thosewho strive to take care of themselves. A great leader appeared amongthe suffering Hollanders, almost driven to despair--the celebratedWilliam of Nassau, Prince of Orange. He appeared as the champion ofthe oppressed and insulted people; they rallied around his standard, fought with desperate bravery, opened the dikes upon their cultivatedfields, expelled their invaders, and laid the foundation of theirliberties. But they could not have withstood the gigantic power of theSpanish monarchy, then in the fulness of its strength, and the mostpowerful in Europe, had it not been for aid rendered by Elizabeth. Shecompassionated their sufferings, and had respect for their cause. Sheentered into an alliance, defensive and offensive, and the Netherlandsbecame the great theatre of war, even after they had thrown off theSpanish yoke. Although the United Provinces in the end obtained theirliberty, they suffered incredible hardships, and lost some of thefinest of their cities, Antwerp among the rest, long the rival ofAmsterdam, and the scene of Rubens's labors. 

[Sidenote: Military Preparations of Philip II. ]

The assistance which Elizabeth rendered to the Hollanders, of course, provoked the resentment of Philip II. , and this was increased by thelegalized piracies of Sir Francis Drake, in the West Indies, and onthe coasts of South America. This commander, in time of peace, insisted on a right to visit those ports which the Spaniards hadclosed, which, by the law of nations, is piracy. Philip, according toall political maxims, was forced to declare war with England, and hemade immense preparations to subdue it. But the preparations ofElizabeth to resist the powerful monarch were also great, and Drakeperformed brilliant exploits on the sea, among other things, destroying one hundred ships in the Bay of Cadiz, and taking immensespoil. The preparations of the Spanish monarch were made on such agigantic scale, that Elizabeth summoned a great council of war to meetthe emergency, at which the all-accomplished Sir Walter Raleigh took aleading part. His advice was to meet the Spaniards on the sea. Although the royal navy consisted, at this time, of only thirty-sixsail, such vigorous measures were prosecuted, that one hundred andninety-one ships were collected, manned by seventeen thousand fourhundred seamen. The merchants of London granted thirty ships and tenthousand men, and all England was aroused to meet the expected danger. Never was patriotism more signally evinced, never were more decisiveproofs given of the popularity of a sovereign. Indeed, Elizabeth wasalways popular with the nation; and with all her ceremony, and state, and rudeness to the commons, and with all their apparent servility, she never violated the laws, or irritated the people by oppressiveexactions. Many acts of the Tudor princes seem to indicate the reignof despotism in England, but this despotism was never grievous, andhad all the benignity of a paternal government. Capricious andarbitrary as Elizabeth was, in regard to some unfortunate individualswho provoked her hatred or her jealousy, still she ever sedulouslyguarded the interests of the nation, and listened to the counsel ofpatriotic and able ministers. When England was threatened with aSpanish invasion, there was not a corner of the land which did notrise to protect a beloved sovereign; nor was there a single spot, where a landing might be effected, around which an army of twentythousand could not be rallied in forty-eight hours. 

[Sidenote: Spanish Armada. ]

But Philip, nevertheless, expected the complete conquest of England;and, as his "Invincible Armada" of one hundred and thirty ships, leftthe mouth of the Tagus, commanded by Medina Sidonia, and manned by thenoblest troops of Spain, he fancied his hour of triumph was at hand. But his hopes proved dreams, like most of the ambitious designs ofmen. The armada met with nothing but misfortunes, both from battle andfrom storms. Only fifty ships returned to Spain. An immense booty wasdivided among the English sailors, and Elizabeth sent, in her turn, alarge fleet to Spain, the following year, (1589, ) under the command ofDrake, which, after burning a few towns, returned ingloriously toEngland, with a loss of ten thousand men. The war was continued withvarious success till 1598, when a peace was negotiated. The same year, died Philip II. , and Lord Burleigh, who, for forty years, directed thecouncils of Elizabeth, and to whose voice she ever listened, even whenopposed by such favorites as Leicester and Essex. Burleigh was not agreat genius, but was a man admirably adapted to his station and histimes, --was cool, sagacious, politic, and pacific, skilful in thedetails of business competent to advise, but not aspiring to command. He was splendidly rewarded for his services, and left behind him threehundred distinct landed estates. 

[Sidenote: Irish Rebellion. ]

Meanwhile the attention of the queen was directed to the affairs ofIreland, which had been conquered by Henry II. In the year 1170, butover which only an imperfect sovereignty had been exercised. The Irishprinces and nobles, divided among themselves, paid the exterior marksof obedience, but kept the country in a constant state ofinsurrection. 

The impolitic and romantic projects of the English princes forsubduing France, prevented a due attention to Ireland, ever miserablygoverned. Elizabeth was the first of the English sovereigns toperceive the political importance of this island, and the necessityfor the establishment of law and order. Besides furnishing governorsof great capacity, she founded the university of Dublin, and attemptedto civilize the half-barbarous people. Unfortunately, she also soughtto make them Protestants, against their will, which laid thefoundation of many subsequent troubles, not yet removed. A spirit ofdiscontent pervaded the country, and the people were ready forrebellion. Hugh O'Neale, the head of a powerful clan, and who had beenraised to the dignity of Earl of Tyrone, yet attached to the barbarouslicense in which he had been early trained, fomented the populardiscontents, and excited a dangerous rebellion. Hostilities, of themost sanguinary character, commenced. The queen sent over herfavorite, the Earl of Essex, with an army of twenty thousand men, tocrush the rebellion. He was a brave commander, but was totallyunacquainted with the country and the people he was expected tosubdue, and was, consequently, unsuccessful. But his successor, LordMountjoy, succeeded in restoring the queen's authority, though at thecost of four millions and a half, an immense sum in that age, whilepoor Ireland was devastated with fire and sword, and suffered everyaggravation of accumulated calamities. 

[Sidenote: The Earl of Essex. ]

Meanwhile, Essex, who had returned to England against the queen'sorders, was treated with coldness, deprived of his employments, andsentenced to be confined. This was more than the haughty favoritecould bear, accustomed as he had been to royal favor. At first, heacquiesced in his punishment, with every mark of penitence, andElizabeth was beginning to relax in her severity for she neverintended to ruin him; but he soon gave vent to his violent temper, indulged in great liberties of speech, and threw off all appearance ofduty and respect. He even engaged in treasonable designs, encouragedRoman Catholics at his house, and corresponded with James VI. OfScotland about his succession. His proceedings were discovered, and hewas summoned before the privy council. Instead of obedience, he armedhimself and his followers, and, in conjunction with some discontentednobles, and about three hundred gentlemen, attempted to excite aninsurrection in London, where he was very popular with the citizens. He was captured and committed to the Tower, with the Earl ofSouthampton. These rash but brave noblemen were tried by their peers, and condemned as guilty of high treason. In this trial, the celebratedBacon appeared against his old patron, and likened him to the Duke ofGuise. The great lawyer Coke, who was attorney-general, compared himto Catiline. 

Essex disdained to sue the queen for a pardon, and was privatelybeheaded in the Tower. He merited his fate, if the offence of which hewas guilty deserved such a punishment. It is impossible not to beinterested in the fate of a man so brave, high-spirited, and generous, the idol of the people, and the victor in so many enterprises. Somehistorians maintain that Elizabeth relented, and would have saved herfavorite, had he only implored her clemency; but this statement isdenied by others; nor have we any evidence to believe that Essex, caught with arms against the sovereign who had honored him, could haveaverted his fate. 

Elizabeth may have wept for the death of the nobleman she had loved. It is certain that, after his death, she never regained her spirits, and that a deep melancholy was visible in her countenance. All heractions showed a deeply-settled inward grief, and that she longed fordeath, having tasted the unsubstantial nature of human greatness. Shesurvived the execution of Essex two years, but lived long enough tosee the neglect into which she was every day falling, and to feelthat, in spite of all her glory and power, she was not exempted fromdrinking the cup of bitterness. 

[Sidenote: Character of Elizabeth. ]

Whatever unamiable qualities she evinced as a woman, in spite of hervanity, and jealousy, and imperious temper, her reign was one of themost glorious in the annals of her country. The policy of Burleigh wasthe policy of Sir Robert Walpole--that of peace, and a desire toincrease the resources of the kingdom. Her taxes were neveroppressive, and were raised without murmur; the people were loyal andcontented; the Protestant religion was established on a firmfoundation; and a constellation of great men shed around her thronethe bright rays of immortal genius. 

The most unhappy peculiarity of her reign was the persecution of theNon-conformists, which, if not sanguinary, was irritating and severe. For some time after the accession of Elizabeth, the Puritans werepermitted to indulge in their peculiarities, without being excludedfrom the established church; but when Elizabeth felt herself secure, then they were obliged to conform, or suffered imprisonment, fines, and other punishments. The original difficulty was their repugnance tothe surplice, and to some few forms of worship, which graduallyextended to an opposition to the order of bishops; to the temporaldignities of the church; to the various titles of the hierarchy; tothe jurisdiction of the spiritual courts; to the promiscuous access ofall persons to the communion table; to the liturgy; to the observanceof holydays; to the cathedral worship; to the use of organs; to thepresentation of living by patrons; and finally, to some of thedoctrines of the established church. The separation of the Puritansfrom the Episcopal church, took place in 1566; and, from that time tothe death of Elizabeth, they enjoyed no peace, although they soughtredress in the most respectful manner, and raised no opposition to theroyal authority. Thousands were ejected from their livings, andotherwise punished, for not conforming to the royal conscience. Butpersecution and penal laws fanned a fanatical spirit, which, in thereign of Charles, burst out into a destructive flame, and spreaddevastation and ruin through all parts of the kingdom. 

If the queen and her ministers did not understand the principles ofreligious toleration, they pursued a much more enlightened policy inregard to all financial and political subjects, than during any formerreign. The commercial importance of England received a new impulse. The reign of Henry VIII. Was a reign of spoliation. The king wasenriched beyond all former precedent, but his riches did not keep pacewith his spendthrift habits. The value of the abbey lands which Henryseized amounted, a century after his death, to six million pounds. Thelands of the abbey of St. Alban's alone rented for two hundredthousand pounds. The king debased the coin, confiscated chapels andcolleges, as well as monasteries, and raised money by embargoes, monopolies, and compulsory loans. 

[Sidenote: Improvements Made in the Reign of Elizabeth. ]

But Elizabeth, instead of contracting debts, paid off the old ones, restored the coin to its purity, and was content with an annualrevenue of five hundred thousand pounds, even at a time when therebellion in Ireland cost her four hundred thousand pounds. Herfrugality equalled the rapacity of her father, and she was extravagantonly in dress, and on great occasions of public rejoicings. But hereconomy was a small matter compared with the wise laws which werepassed respecting the trade of the country, by which commercialindustry began to characterize the people. Improvements in navigationfollowed, and also maritime discoveries and colonial settlements. SirFrancis Drake circumnavigated the globe, and the East India Companywas formed. Under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh, Virginia wasdiscovered and colonized. Unfortunately, also, the African slave tradecommenced--a traffic which has been productive of more human misery, and led to more disastrous political evils, than can be traced to anyother event in the history of modern times. 

During this reign, the houses of the people became more comfortable;chimneys began to be used; pewter dishes took the place of woodentrenchers, and wheat was substituted for rye and barley; linen andwoollen cloth was manufactured; salads, cabbages, gooseberries, apricots, pippins, currants, cherries, plums, carnations, and thedamask rose were cultivated, for the first time. But the great gloryof this reign was the revival of literature and science. Raleigh, "thesoldier, the sailor, the scholar, the philosopher, the poet, theorator, the historian, the courtier, " then, adorned the court, and theprince of poets, the immortal Shakspeare, then wrote those plays, which, for moral wisdom and knowledge of the human soul, appear to usalmost to be dictated by the voice of inspiration. The prince ofphilosophers too, the great miner and sapper of the false systems ofthe middle ages, Francis Bacon, then commenced his career, and Spenserdedicated to Elizabeth his "Fairy Queen, " one of the most trulypoetical compositions that genius ever produced. The age produced alsogreat divines; but these did not occupy so prominent a place in thenation's eye as during the succeeding reigns. 

[Sidenote: Reflections. ]

While the virgin queen was exercising so benign an influence on theEnglish nation, great events, though not disconnected with Englishpolitics, were taking place on the continent. The most remarkable ofthese was the persecution of the Huguenots. The rise and fortunes ofthis sect, during the reigns of Henry II. , Francis II. , Charles IX. , Henry III. , and Henry IV. , now demand our attention. If a newspaperhad, in that age, been conducted upon the principles it now is, thesufferings of the Huguenots would always be noticed. It is ourprovince to describe just what a modern newspaper would have alludedto, had it been printed three hundred years ago. It would not havebeen filled with genealogies of kings, but with descriptions of greatpopular movements. And this is history. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --For the history of this reign, see Hume, Lingard, and Hallam; Miss Strickland's Queens of England; Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; M'Crie's Life of Knox; Robertson's History of Scotland; Macaulay's Essay on Nares's Life of Burleigh; Life of Sir Walter Raleigh; Neale's History of the Puritans. Kenilworth may also be profitably read. 

CHAPTER VII. 

FRANCIS II. , CHARLES IX. , HENRY III. , AND HENRY IV. 

The history of France, from the death of Francis I. To the accessionof Henry IV. Is virtually the history of religious contentions andpersecutions, and of those civil wars which grew out of them. TheHuguenotic contest, then, is a great historical subject, and will bepresented in connection with the history of France, until the death ofHenry IV. , the greatest of the French monarchs, and long theillustrious head of the Protestant party. 

The reform doctrines first began to spread in France during the reignof Francis I. As early as 1523, he became a persecutor, and burnedmany at the stake, among whom the descendants of the Waldenses werethe most numerous. In 1540, sentence was pronounced against them bythe parliament of Aix. Their doctrines were the same in substance asthose of the Swiss reformers. 

While this persecution was raging, John Calvin fled from France toFerrara, from which city he proceeded to Geneva. This was in the year1536, when his theological career commenced by the publication of hisInstitutes, which were dedicated to Francis I. , one of the mostmasterly theological works ever written, although compended from thewritings of Augustine. The Institutes of Calvin, the great text-bookof the Swiss and French reformers, were distasteful to the Frenchking, and he gave fresh order for the persecution of the Protestants. Notwithstanding the hostility of Francis, the new doctrines spread, and were embraced by some of the most distinguished of the Frenchnobility. The violence of persecution was not much arrested during thereign of Henry II. , and, through the influence of the Cardinal ofLorraine, the inquisition was established in the kingdom. 

[Sidenote: Catharine de Medicis. ]

The wife of Henry II. Was the celebrated Catharine de Medicis; and shewas bitterly opposed to the reform doctrines, and incited her husbandto the most cruel atrocities. Francis II. Continued the persecution, and his mother, Catharine, became virtually the ruler of the nation. 

The power of the queen mother was much increased when Francis II. Died, and when his brother, Charles IX. , a boy of nine years of age, succeeded to the French crown. She exercised her power by the mostunsparing religious persecution recorded in the history of modernEurope. There had been some hope that Protestantism would beestablished in France; but it did not succeed, owing to the violenceof the persecution. It made, however, a desperate struggle before itwas overcome. 

At the head of the Catholic party were the queen regent, the Cardinalof Lorraine, the Duke of Guise, his brother, and the ConstableMontmorency. They had the support of the priesthood, of the Spaniards, and a great majority of the nation. 

The Protestants were headed by the King of Navarre, father ofHenry IV. , the Prince of Condé, his brother, and Admiral Coligny; andthey had the sympathy of the university, the parliaments, and theProtestants of Germany and England. 

[Sidenote: Civil War in France. ]

Between these parties a struggle lasted for forty years, with varioussuccess. Persecution provoked resistance, but resistance did not leadto liberty. Civil war in France did not secure the object sought. Still the Protestants had hope, and, as they could always assemble alarge army, they maintained their ground. Their conduct was not markedby the religious earnestness which characterized the Puritans, or bythe same strength of religious principle. Moreover, political motiveswere mingled with religious. The contest was a struggle for theascendency of rival chiefs, as well as for the establishment ofreformed doctrines. The Bourbons hated the Guises, and the Guisesresolved to destroy the Bourbons. In the course of their rivalry andwarfare, the Duke of Guise was assassinated, and the King of Navarre, as well as the Prince of Condé, were killed. 

Charles IX. Was fourteen years of age when the young king ofNavarre, --at that time sixteen years of age, --and his cousin, thePrince of Condé, became the acknowledged heads of the Protestantparty. Their education was learned in the camp and the field ofbattle. 

Charles IX. , under the influence of his hateful mother, finding thatcivil war only destroyed the resources of the country, withoutweakening the Protestants, made peace, but formed a plan for theirextermination by treachery. In order to cover his designs he gave hissister, Margaret de Valois, in marriage to the King of Navarre, firstprince of the blood, then nineteen years of age. Admiral Coligny wasinvited to Paris, and treated with distinguished courtesy. 

[Sidenote: Massacre of St. Bartholomew. ]

It was during the festivities which succeeded the marriage of the Kingof Navarre that Coligny was murdered, and the signal for the horridslaughter of St. Bartholomew was given. At midnight, August 23, 1572, the great bell at the Hotel de Ville began to toll; torches wereplaced in the windows, chains were drawn across the streets, and armedbodies collected around the hotels. The doors of the houses werebroken open, and neither age, condition, nor sex was spared, of suchas were not distinguished by a white cross in the hat. The massacre atParis was followed by one equally brutal in the provinces. Seventythousand people were slain in cold blood. The King of Navarre and thePrince of Condé only escaped in consequence of their relationship withthe king, and by renouncing the Protestant religion. 

Most of the European courts expressed their detestation of thisfoulest crime in the history of religious bigotry; but the pope wentin grand procession to his cathedral, and ordered a _Te Deum_ to besung in commemoration of an event which steeped his cause in infamy tothe end of time. 

The Protestants, though nearly exterminated, again rallied, and theKing of Navarre and his cousin the Prince of Condé escaped, renouncedthe religion which had been forced on them by fear of death, andprosecuted a bloody civil war, with the firm resolution of neverabandoning it until religious liberty was guarantied. 

Meanwhile, Charles IX. Died, as it was supposed, by poison. His lasthours were wretched, and his remorse for the massacre of St. Bartholomew filled his soul with agony. He beheld spectres, anddreamed horrid dreams; his imagination constantly saw heaps of lividbodies, and his ears were assailed with imaginary groans. He becamemelancholy and ferocious, while his kingdom became the prey offactions and insurrections. But he was a timid and irresolute king, and was but the tool of his infamous mother, the grand patroness ofassassins, against whom, on his death bed, he cautioned the king ofNavarre. 

[Sidenote: Henry III. --Henry IV. ]

He was succeeded by his brother, the King of Poland, under the titleof Henry III. The persecutions of the Huguenots were renewed, and theold scenes of treachery, assassination, and war were acted over again. The cause of religion was lost sight of in the labyrinth ofcontentions, jealousies, and plots. Intrigues and factions wereendless. Nearly all the leaders, on both sides, perished by the swordor the dagger. The Prince of Condé, the Duke of Guise, and hisbrother, the Cardinal of Lorraine, were assassinated. Shortly after, died the chief mover of all the troubles, Catharine de Medicis, awoman of talents and persuasive eloquence, but of most unprincipledambition, perfidious, cruel, and dissolute. She encouraged thelicentiousness of the court, and even the worst vices of her sons, that she might make them subservient to her designs. All her passionswere subordinate to her calculations of policy, and every womanlyvirtue was suppressed by the desire of wielding a government which sheusurped. 

Henry III. Soon followed her to the grave, being, in turn, assassinated by a religious fanatic. His death (1589) secured thethrone to the king of Navarre, who took the title of Henry IV. 

Henry IV. , the first of the Bourbon line, was descended from Robert, the sixth son of St. Louis, who had married the daughter and heiressof John of Burgundy and Agnes of Bourbon. He was thirty-six years ofage when he became king, and had passed through great experiences andmany sorrows. Thus far he had contended for Protestant opinions, andwas the acknowledged leader of the Protestant party in France. But alife of contention and bloodshed, and the new career opened to him asking of France, cooled his religious ardor, and he did not hesitate toaccept the condition which the French nobles imposed, before theywould take the oaths of allegiance. This was, that he should abjureProtestantism. "My kingdom, " said he, "is well worth a mass. " It willbe ever laid to his reproach, by the Protestants, that he renouncedhis religion for worldly elevation. Nor is it easy to exculpate him onthe highest principles of moral integrity. But there were manypalliations for his conduct, which it is not now easy to appreciate. It is well known that the illustrious Sully, his prime minister, and, through life, a zealous Protestant, approved of his course. It wascertainly clear that, without becoming a Catholic, he never couldpeaceably enjoy his crown, and France would be rent, for anothergeneration, by those civil wars which none lamented more than Henryhimself. Besides, four fifths of the population were Catholics, andthe Protestants could not reasonably expect to gain the ascendency. All they could expect was religious toleration, and this Henry waswilling to grant. It should also be considered that the king, thoughhe professed the reform doctrines, was never what may be called areligious man, being devoted to pleasure, and to schemes of ambition. It is true he understood and consulted the interests of his kingdom, and strove to make his subjects happy. Herein consists his excellence. As a magnanimous, liberal-minded, and enterprising man, he surpassedall the French kings. But it is ridiculous to call him a religiousman, or even strongly fixed in his religious opinions. "Do you, " saidthe king to a great Protestant divine, "believe that a man may besaved by the Catholic religion?" "Undoubtedly, " replied the clergyman, "if his life and heart be holy. " "Then, " said the king, "prudencedictates that I embrace the Catholic religion, and not yours; for, inthat case, according to both Catholics and Protestants, I may besaved; but, if I embrace your religion, I shall not be saved, according to the Catholics. "

But the king's conversion to Catholicism did not immediately result inthe tranquillity of the distracted country. The Catholics would notbelieve in his sincerity, and many battles had to be fought before hewas in peaceable enjoyment of his throne. But there is nothing sohateful as civil war, especially to the inhabitants of great cities;and Paris, at last, and the chief places in the kingdom, acknowledgedhis sway. The king of Spain, the great Catholic prelates, and thepope, finally perceived how hopeless was the struggle against a man ofgreat military experience, with a devoted army and an enthusiasticcapital on his side. 

The peace of Verviens, in 1598, left the king without foreign ordomestic enemies. From that period to his death, his life was devotedto the welfare of his country. 

[Sidenote: Edict of Nantes. ]

His first act was the celebrated Edict of Nantes, by which theHuguenots had quiet and undisturbed residence, the free exercise oftheir religion, and public worship, except in the court, the army, andwithin five leagues of Paris. They were eligible to all offices, civiland military; and all public prosecutions, on account of religion, were dropped. This edict also promulgated a general amnesty forpolitical offences, and restored property and titles, as before thewar; but the Protestants were prohibited from printing controversialbooks, and were compelled to pay tithes to the established clergy. 

Henry IV. , considering the obstacles with which he had to contend, wasthe greatest general of the age; but it is his efforts in civilizationwhich entitle him to his epithet of _Great_. 

[Sidenote: Improvements during the Reign of Henry IV. ]

The first thing which demanded his attention, as a civil ruler, wasthe settlement of the finances--ever the leading cause of troubleswith the French government. These were intrusted to the care of Rosny, afterward Duke of Sully, the most able and upright of all Frenchfinanciers--a man of remarkable probity and elevation of sentiment. Heever continued to be the minister and the confidant of the king, andmaintained his position without subserviency or flattery, almost theonly man on the records of history who could tell, with impunity, wholesome truths to an absolute monarch. So wise were his financialarrangements, that a debt of three hundred million of livres was paidoff in eight years. In five years, the taxes were reduced one half, the crown lands redeemed, the arsenals stored, the fortificationsrebuilt, churches erected, canals dug, and improvements made in everypart of the kingdom. On the death of the king, he had in his treasurynearly fifty millions of livres. Under the direction of this ableminister, the laws were enforced, robbery and vagrancy were nearlystopped, and agriculture received a great impulse. But economy was theorder of the day. The king himself set an illustrious example, andeven dressed in gray cloth, with a doublet of taffeta, withoutembroidery, dispensed with all superfluity at his table, and dismissedall useless servants. 

The management and economy of the king enabled him to make greatimprovements, besides settling the deranged finances of the kingdom. He built innumerable churches, bridges, convents, hospitals, fortresses, and ships. Some of the finest palaces which adorn Pariswere erected by him. He was also the patron of learning, the benefitsof which he appreciated. He himself was well acquainted with thewritings of the ancients. He was particularly fond of the society ofthe learned, with whom he conversed with freedom and affability. Heincreased the libraries, opened public schools, and inviteddistinguished foreigners to Paris, and rewarded them with stipends. Lipsius, Scaliger, and De Thou, were the ornaments of his court. 

And his tender regard to the happiness and welfare of his subjects wasas marked as his generous appreciation of literature and science. Itwas his ambition to be the father of his people; and his memorablesaying, "Yes, I will so manage matters that the poorest peasant in mykingdom may eat meat each day in the week, and, moreover, be enabledto put a fowl in the pot on a Sunday, " has alone embalmed his memoryin the affections of the French nation, who, of all their monarchs, are most partial to Henry IV. 

[Sidenote: Peace Scheme of Henry IV. ]

But this excellent king was also a philanthropist, and cherished themost enlightened views as to those subjects on which rests thehappiness of nations. Though a warrior, the preservation of a lastingpeace was the great idea of his life. He was even visionary in hisprojects to do good; for he imagined it was possible to convincemonarchs that they ought to prefer purity, peace, and benevolence, toambition and war. Hence, he proposed to establish a Congress ofNations, chosen from the various states of Europe, to whom allinternational difficulties should be referred, with power to settlethem--a very desirable object, the most so conceivable; for war is thegreatest of all national calamities and crimes. The scheme of theenlightened Henry, however, did not attract much attention; and, evenhad it been encouraged, would have been set aside in the nextgeneration. What would such men as Frederic the Great, or Marlborough, or Louis XIV. , or Napoleon have cared for such an object? But Henry, in his scheme, also had in view the regulation of such forces as theEuropean monarchs should sustain, and this arose from his desire topreserve the "Balance of Power"--the great object of Europeanpoliticians in these latter times. 

[Sidenote: Death of Henry IV. ]

But Henry was not permitted, by Providence, to prosecute hisbenevolent designs. He was assassinated by a man whom he had neverinjured--by the most unscrupulous of all misguided men--a religiousbigot. The Jesuit Ravaillac, in a mood, as it is to be hoped, bordering on madness, perpetrated the foul deed. But Henry onlysuffered the fate of nearly all the distinguished actors in thosecivil and religious contentions which desolated France for fortyyears. He died in 1610, at the age of fifty-seven, having reignedtwenty-one years, nine of which were spent in uninterrupted warfare. 

By his death the kingdom was thrown into deep and undissembledmourning. Many fell speechless in the streets when the intelligence ofhis assassination was known; others died from excess of grief. Allfelt that they had lost more than a father, and nothing wasanticipated but storms and commotions. 

He left no children by his wife, Margaret de Valois, who provedinconstant, and from whom he was separated. By his second wife, Maryde Medicis, he had three children, the oldest of whom was a child whenhe ascended the throne, by the title of Louis XIII. His daughter, Henrietta, married Charles I. Of England. 

Though great advances were made in France during this reign, it wasstill far from that state of civilization which it attained a centuryafterwards. It contained about fifteen million of inhabitants, andParis about one hundred and fifty thousand. The nobles were numerousand powerful, and engrossed the wealth of the nation. The people werenot exactly slaves, but were reduced to great dependence, wereuneducated, degraded, and enjoyed but few political or socialprivileges. They were oppressed by the government, by the nobles, andby the clergy. 

The highest official dignitary was the constable, the second thekeeper of the seals, the third the chamberlain, then the six or eightmarshals, then the secretary of state, then gentlemen of thehousehold, and military commanders. The king was nearly absolute. Theparliament was a judicial tribunal, which did not enact laws, butwhich registered the edicts of the king. 

Commerce and manufactures were extremely limited, and far fromflourishing; and the arts were in an infant state. Architecture, theonly art in which half-civilized nations have excelled, was the mostadvanced, and was displayed in the churches and royal palaces. Pariswas crowded with uncomfortable houses, and the narrow streets werefavorable to tumult as well as pestilence. Tapestry was the mostcommon and the most expensive of the arts, and the hangings, in asingle room, often reached a sum which would be equal, in these times, to one hundred thousand dollars. The floors of the palaces were spreadwith Turkey carpets. Chairs were used only in kings' palaces, andcarriages were but just introduced, and were clumsy and awkward. Muleswere chiefly used in travelling, the horses being reserved for war. Dress, especially of females, was gorgeous and extravagant; falsehair, masks, trailed petticoats, and cork heels ten inches high, weresome of the peculiarities. The French then, as now, were fond of thepleasures of the table, and the hour for dinner was eleven o'clock. Morals were extremely low, and gaming was a universal passion, inwhich Henry IV. Himself extravagantly indulged. The advice ofCatharine de Medicis to her son Charles IX. Showed her knowledge ofthe French character, even as it exists now: "Twice a week give publicassemblies, for the specific secret of the French government is, tokeep the people always cheerful; for they are so restless you mustoccupy them, during peace, either with business or amusement, or elsethey will involve you in trouble. "

[Sidenote: France at the Death of Henry IV. ]

Such was France, at the death of Henry IV. , 1610, one of the largestand most powerful of the European kingdoms, though far from thegreatness it was destined afterwards to attain. 

A more powerful monarchy, at this period, was Spain. As this kingdomwas then in the zenith of its power and glory, we will take a briefsurvey of it during the reign of Philip II. , the successor ofCharles V. , a person to whom we have often referred. With his reignare closely connected the struggles of the Hollanders to secure theircivil and religious independence. The Low Countries were provinces ofSpain, and therefore to be considered in connection with Spanishhistory. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --For a knowledge of France during the reign of Henry IV. , see James's History of Henry IV. ; James's Life of Condé; History of the Huguenots. Rankin's and Crowe's Histories of France are the best in English, but far inferior to Sismondi's, Millot's, and Lacretelle's. Sully's Memoirs throw considerable light on this period, and Dumas's Margaret de Valois may be read with profit. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PHILIP II. AND THE AUSTRIAN PRINCES OF SPAIN. 

[Sidenote: Bigotry of Philip II. ]

Spain cannot be said to have been a powerful state until the reign ofFerdinand and Isabella; when the crowns of Castile and Arragon wereunited, and when the discoveries of Columbus added a new world totheir extensive territories. Nor, during the reign of Ferdinand andIsabella, was the power of the crown as absolute as during the sway ofthe Austrian princes. The nobles were animated by a bold and freespirit, and the clergy dared to resist the encroachments of royalty, and even the usurpations of Rome. Charles V. Succeeded in suppressingthe power of the nobles, and all insurrections of the people, and laidthe foundation for the power of his gloomy son, Philip II. With Philipcommenced the grandeur of the Spanish monarchy. By him, also, weresown the seeds of its subsequent decay. Under him, the inquisition wasdisgraced by ten thousand enormities, Holland was overrun by the Dukeof Alva, and America conquered by Cortes and Pizarro. It was he whobuilt the gorgeous palaces of Spain, and who, with his InvincibleArmada, meditated the conquest of England. The wealth of the Indiesflowed into the royal treasury, and also enriched all orders andclasses. Silver and gold became as plenty at Madrid as in old times atJerusalem under the reign of Solomon. But Philip was a differentprince from Solomon. His talents and attainments were respectable, buthe had a jealous and selfish disposition, and exerted all the energiesof his mind, and all the resources of his kingdom, to crush theProtestant religion and the liberties of Europe. 

Among the first acts of his reign was the effort to extinguishProtestantism in the Netherlands, an assemblage of seigniories, undervarious titles, subject to his authority. The opinions of Luther andCalvin made great progress in this country, and Philip, in order torepress them, created new bishops, and established the Inquisition. The people protested, and these protests were considered asrebellious. 

[Sidenote: Revolt of the Netherlands. ]

At the head of the nobility was William, the Prince of Orange, on whomPhilip had conferred the government of Holland, Zealand, Friesland, and Utrecht, provinces of the Netherlands. He was a haughty butresolute and courageous character, and had adopted the opinions ofCalvin, for which he lost the confidence of Philip. In the prospect ofdestruction, he embraced the resolution of delivering his country fromthe yoke of a merciless and bigoted master. Having reduced the mostimportant garrisons of Holland and Zealand, he was proclaimedstadtholder, and openly threw off his allegiance to Spain. Hostilities, of course, commenced. Alva, the general of Philip, tookthe old city of Haerlem, and put fifteen hundred to the sword, amongwhom were all the magistrates, and all the Protestant clergy. 

Don John, Archduke of Austria, and the brother of Philip, succeededthe Duke of Alva, during whose administration the seven UnitedProvinces formed themselves into a confederation, and chose the Princeof Orange to be the general of their armies, admiral of their fleets, and chief magistrate, by the title of _stadtholder_. But William wassoon after assassinated by a wretch who had been bribed by theexasperated Philip, and Maurice, his son, received his title, dignities, and power. His military talents, as the antagonist of theDuke of Parma, lieutenant to Philip, in the Netherlands, secured him ahigh place in the estimation of warriors. To protect this prince andthe infant republic of Holland, Queen Elizabeth sent four thousand menunder the Earl of Leicester, her favorite; and, with this assistance, the Hollanders maintained their ground against the most powerfulmonarch in Europe, as has been already mentioned in the chapter onElizabeth. 

After the loss of the Netherlands, the next great event of his reignwas the acquisition of Portugal, to which he laid claim on the deathof Don Henry, in 1581. There were several other claimants, but Philip, with an army of twenty thousand, was stronger than any of the others. He gained a decisive victory over Don Antonio, uncle to the lastmonarch, and was crowned at Lisbon without opposition. 

[Sidenote: Revolt of the Moriscoes. ]

The revolt of the Moriscoes occupies a prominent place in the annalsof this reign. They were Christianized Moors, but, at heart, Mohammedans. A decree had been published that their children shouldfrequent the Christian church, that the Arabic should no longer beused in writing, that both men and women should wear the Spanishcostume, that they no longer should receive Mohammedan names, or marrywithout permission. The Moriscoes contended that no particular dressinvolved religious opinions, that the women used the veil according totheir notions of modesty, that the use of their own language was nosin, and that baths were used, not from religious motives, but for thesake of cleanliness. These expostulations were, however, withouteffect. Nothing could move the bigoted king. So revolt followedcruelty and oppression. Great excesses were committed by both parties, and most horrible barbarities were exhibited. The atrocious nature ofcivil war is ever the same, and presents nearly the same undeviatingpicture of misery and crime. But in this war there was somethingfiendish. A clergyman was roasted over a brazier, and the women, wearied with his protracted death, despatched him with their needlesand knives. The rebels ridiculed the sacrifice of the mass byslaughtering a pig on the high altar of a church. These insults wereretaliated with that cruelty which Spanish bigotry and malice know sowell how to inflict. Thousands of defenceless women and children weremurdered in violation of the most solemn treaties. The whole Moorishpopulation was finally exterminated, and Granada, with its beautifulmountains and fertile valleys, was made a desert. No less than sixhundred thousand were driven to Africa--an act of great impolicy, since the Moriscoes were the most ingenious and industrious part ofthe population; and their exile contributed to undermine that nationalprosperity in which, at that day, every Spaniard gloried. Butdestruction ever succeeds pride: infatuation and blindness are theattendants of despotism. 

The destruction of the Spanish Armada, and the losses which theSpaniards suffered from Sir Francis Drake and Admiral Hawkins, havealready been mentioned. But the pride of Philip was mortified, ratherthan that his power was diminished. His ambition received a check, andhe found it impossible to conquer England. His finances, too, becamederanged; still he remained the absolute master of the richest kingdomin the world. 

[Sidenote: Causes of Decline of the Spanish Monarchy. ]

The decline of the Spanish monarchy dates from his death which tookplace in his magnificent palace of the Escurial, in 1598. Under hisson Philip III. , decline became very marked, and future ruin could bepredicted. 

The principal cause of the decline of prosperity was the greatincrease of the clergy, and the extent of their wealth. In the Spanishdominions, which included Spain, Naples, Milan, Parma, Sicily, Sardinia, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the Indies, there werefifty-four archbishops, six hundred and eighty-four bishops, seventhousand hospitals, one hundred thousand abbeys and nunneries, sixhundred thousand monks, and three hundred and ten thousand secularpriests--a priest to every ten families. Almost every village had amonastery. The diocese of Seville had fourteen thousand priests, nearly the present number of all the clergy of the establishment inEngland. The cathedral of Seville gave support and occupation to onehundred priests. 

And this numerous clergy usurped the power and dignities of the state. They also encouraged that frightful inquisition, the very name ofwhich conjures up the most horrid images of death and torture. Thisinstitution, committed to the care of Dominican monks, was institutedto put down heresy; that is, every thing in poetry, philosophy, orreligion, which was distasteful to the despots of the human mind. Theinquisitors had power to apprehend people even suspected of heresy, and, on the testimony of two witnesses, could condemn them to torture, imprisonment, and death. Resistance was vain; complaint was ruin. Arrests took place suddenly and secretly. Nor had the prisoner aknowledge of his accusers, or of the crimes of which he was accused. The most delicate maidens, as well as men of hoary hairs and knownintegrity, were subjected to every outrage that human nature couldbear, or satanic ingenuity inflict. Should the jailer take compassion, and bestow a few crumbs of bread or drops of water, he would bepunished as the greatest of traitors. Even nobles were not exemptedfrom the supervision of this court, which was established in everyvillage and town in Portugal and Spain, and which, in the single cityof Toledo, condemned, in one year, seventeen thousand people. Thisinstitution was tolerated by the king, since he knew very well thatthere ever exists an intimate union between absolutism in religion andabsolutism in government. 

[Sidenote: The Increase of Gold and Silver. ]

[Sidenote: Decline of the Spanish Monarchy. ]

Besides the spiritual despotism which the clergy of Spain exercisedover a deluded people, but a people naturally of fine elements ofcharacter, the sudden increase of gold and silver led to luxury, idleness, and degeneracy. Money being abundant, in consequence of thegold and silver mines of America, the people neglected the cultivationof those things which money could procure. Then followed a great risein the prices of all kinds of provision and clothing. Houses, lands, and manufactures also soon rose in value. Hence money was delusive, since, with ten times the increase of specie, there was acorresponding decrease in those necessaries of life which gold andsilver would purchase. Silver and gold are only the medium of trade, not the basis of wealth. The real prosperity of a country depends uponthe amount of productive industry. If diamonds were as numerous ascrystals, they would be worth no more than crystals. The sudden influxof the precious metals into Spain doubtless gave a temporary wealth tothe kingdom; but when habits of industry were lost, and the culture ofthe soil was neglected, the gold and silver of the Spaniards wereexchanged for the productive industry of other nations. The Dutch andthe English, whose manufactures and commerce were in a healthy state, became enriched at their expense. With the loss of substantial wealth, that is, industry and economy, the Spaniards lost elevation ofsentiment, became cold and proud, followed frivolous pleasures andamusements, and acquired habits which were ruinous. Plays, pantomimes, and bull-fights now amused the lazy and pleasure-seeking nation, whilethe profligacy of the court had no parallel in Europe, with theexception of that of France. The country became exhausted by war. Thefinances were deranged, and province after province rebelled. Everywhere were military reverses, and a decrease of population. Taxes, inthe mean while, increased, and a burdened people lamented in vaintheir misfortune and decline. The reign of Philip IV. Was the mostdisastrous in the annals of the country. The Catalan insurrection, theloss of Jamaica, the Low Countries, and Portugal, were the results ofhis misrule and imbecility. So rapidly did Spain degenerate, that, upon the close of the Austrian dynasty, with all the naturaladvantages of the country, the best harbors and sea-coast in Europe, the richest soil, and the finest climate, and with the possession ofthe Indies also, the people were the poorest, the most ignorant, andthe most helpless in Europe. The death of Charles II. , a miserable, afflicted, superstitious, priest-ridden monarch, left Spain without aking, and the vacant throne became the prize of any monarch in Europewho could raise and send across the Pyrenees the largest army. It fellinto the power of Louis XIV. , and the Bourbon princes have ever sincein vain attempted the restoration of the broken monarchy to its formerglory. But, alas, Spain has, since the spoliation of the Mexicans andPeruvians, only a melancholy history--a history of crime, bigotry, anarchy, and poverty. The Spaniards committed awful crimes in theirlust for gold and silver. "They had their request, " but God, in hisretributive justice, "sent leanness into their souls. "

 * * * * *

 For the history of Spain during the Austrian princes, see a history in Lardner's Encyclopedia; Watson's Life of Philip II. ; James's Foreign Statesmen; Schiller's Revolt of the Netherlands; Russell's Modern Europe; Prescott's Conquest of Mexico and Peru. 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE JESUITS, AND THE PAPAL POWER IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 

[Sidenote: The Roman Power in the Seventeenth Century. ]

During the period we have just been considering, the most markedpeculiarity was, the struggle between Protestantism and Romanism. Itis true that objects of personal ambition also occupied the minds ofprinces, and many great events occurred, which were not connected withthe struggles for religious liberty and light. But the great featureof the age was the insurrection of human intelligence. There was aspirit of innovation, which nothing could suppress, and this wasdirected, in the main, to matters of religion. The conflict was notbetween church and state, but between two great factions in each. "Noman asked whether another belonged to the same country as himself, butwhether he belonged to the same sect. " Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, Knox, Cranmer, and Bacon were the great pioneers in this march ofinnovation. They wished to explode the ideas of the middle ages, inphilosophy and in religion. They made war upon the Roman CatholicChurch, as the great supporter and defender of old ideas. Theyrenounced her authority. She summoned her friends and vassals, ralliedall her forces, and, with desperate energy, resolved to put down thespirit of reform. The struggles of the Protestants in England, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, alike manifested the samespirit, were produced by the same causes, and brought forth the sameresults. The insurrection was not suppressed. 

[Sidenote: Rise of the Jesuits. ]

The hostile movements of Rome, for a while, were carried on by armies, massacres, assassinations, and inquisitions. The duke of Alva'scruelties in the Netherlands, St. Bartholomew's massacre in France, inquisitorial tortures in Spain, and Smithfield burnings in England, illustrate this assertion. But more subtle and artful agents wererequired, especially since violence had failed. Men of simple lives, of undoubted piety, of earnest zeal, and singular disinterestedness totheir cause, arose, and did what the sword and the stake could notdo, --revived Catholicism, and caused a reaction to Protestantismitself. These men were Jesuits, the most faithful, intrepid, andsuccessful soldiers that ever enlisted under the banners of Rome. Therise and fortunes of this order of monks form one of the mostimportant and interesting chapters in the history of the human race. Their victories, and the spirit which achieved them, are well worthour notice. In considering them, it must be borne in mind, that theJesuits have exhibited traits so dissimilar and contradictory, that itis difficult to form a just judgment. While they were achieving theirvictories, they appeared in a totally different light from whatdistinguished them when they reposed on their laurels. In short, the_earlier_ and the _latter_ Jesuits were entirely different in theirmoral and social aspects, although they had the same externalorganization. The principles of their system were always the same. Themen who defended them, at first, were marked by great virtues, butafterwards were deformed by equally as great vices. It was in theearly days of Jesuitism that the events we have recorded took place. Hence our notice, at present, will be confined to the Jesuits whenthey were worthy of respect, and, in some things, even of admiration. Their courage, fidelity, zeal, learning, and intrepidity for half acentury, have not been exaggerated. 

The founder of the order was Ignatius Loyola, a Spanish gentleman ofnoble birth, who first appeared as a soldier at the siege ofPampeluna, where he was wounded, about the time that Luther waswriting his theses, and disputing about indulgences. He amusedhimself, on his sick bed, by reading the lives of the saints. Hisenthusiastic mind was affected, and he resolved to pass from worldlyto spiritual knighthood. He became a saint, after the notions of theage; that is, he fasted, wore sackcloth, lived on roots and herbs, practised austerities, retired to lonely places, and spent his time incontemplation and prayer. The people were attracted by his sanctity, and followed him in crowds. His heart burned to convert heretics; and, to prepare himself for his mission, he went to the universities, anddevoted himself to study. There he made some distinguished converts, all of whom afterwards became famous. In his narrow cell, at Paris, heinduced Francis Xavier, Faber, Laynez Bobadilla, and Rodriguez toembrace his views, and to form themselves into an association, for theconversion of the world. On the summit of Montmartre, these six youngmen, on one star-lit night, took the usual monastic vows of _poverty_, _chastity_, and _obedience_, and solemnly devoted themselves to theirnew mission. 

[Sidenote: Rapid Spread of the Jesuit Order. ]

They then went to Rome, to induce the pope to constitute them a newmissionary order. But they were ridiculed as fanatics. Moreover, forseveral centuries, there had been great opposition in Rome against theinstitution of new monastic orders. It was thought that there wereorders enough; that the old should be reformed, not new ones created. Even St. Dominic and St. Francis had great difficulty in getting theirorders instituted. But Loyola and his companions made extraordinaryoffers. They professed their willingness to go wherever the popeshould send them, among Turks, heathens, or heretics, instantly, without condition, or reward. 

How could the pope refuse to license them? His empire was in danger;Luther was in the midst of his victories; the power of ideas and truthwas shaking to its centre the pontifical throne; all the old ordershad become degenerate and inefficient, and the pope did not know whereto look for efficient support. The venerable Benedictines wererevelling in the wealth of their splendid abbeys, while the Dominicansand the Franciscans had become itinerant vagabonds, peddling relicsand indulgences, and forgetful of those stern duties and virtues whichoriginally characterized them. All the monks were inexhaustiblesubjects of sarcasm and mockery. They even made scholasticismridiculous, and the papal dogmas contemptible. Erasmus laughed atthem, and Luther mocked them. They were sensual, lazy, ignorant, andcorrupt. The pope did not want such soldiers. But the followers ofLoyola were full of ardor, talent, and zeal; willing to do any thingfor a sinking cause; able to do any thing, so far as human will canavail. And they did not disappoint the pope. Great additions weremade. They increased with marvellous rapidity. The zealous, devout, and energetic, throughout all ranks in the Catholic church, joinedthem. They spread into all lands. They became the confessors of kings, the teachers of youth, the most popular preachers, the most successfulmissionaries. In sixteen years after the scene of Montmartre, Loyolahad established his society in the affections and confidence ofCatholic Europe, against the voice of universities, the fears ofmonarchs, and the jealousy of the other monastic orders. In sixteenyears, from the condition of a ridiculed fanatic, whose voice, however, would have been disregarded a century earlier or later, hebecame one of the most powerful dignitaries of the church, influencingthe councils of the Vatican, moving the minds of kings, controllingthe souls of a numerous fraternity, and making his power felt, even inthe courts of Japan and China. Before he died, his spiritual sons hadplanted their missionary stations amid Peruvian mines, amid the martsof the African slave trade, in the islands of the Indian Ocean, and inthe cities of Japan and China. Nay, his followers had secured the mostimportant chairs in the universities of Europe, and had becomeconfessors to the most powerful monarchs, teachers in the best schoolsof Christendom, and preachers in its principal pulpits. They hadbecome an organization, instinct with life, endued with energy andwill, and forming a body which could outwatch Argus with his hundredeyes, and outwork Briareus with his hundred arms. It had fortythousand eyes open upon every cabinet and private family in Europe, and forty thousand arms extended over the necks of both sovereigns andpeople. It had become a mighty power in the world, inseparablyconnected with the education and the religion of the age, the primemover of all political affairs, the grand prop of absolute monarchies, the last hope of the papal hierarchy. 

[Sidenote: Rapid Spread of the Jesuits. ]

The sudden growth and enormous resources of the "Society of Jesus"impress us with feelings of amazement and awe. We almost attributethem to the agency of mysterious powers, and forget the operations ofnatural causes. The history of society shows that no body of men everobtained a wide-spread ascendency, except by the exercise ofremarkable qualities of mind and heart. And this is the reason why theJesuits prospered. When Catholic Europe saw young men, born to fortuneand honors, voluntarily surrendering their rank and goods, devotingthemselves to religious duties, spending their days in hospitals andschools, wandering, as missionaries, into the most unknown anddangerous parts of the world, exciting the young to study, makinggreat attainments in all departments of literature and science, andshedding a light, wherever they went, by their genius anddisinterestedness, it was natural that they would be received aspreachers, teachers, and confessors. That they were characterized, during the first fifty years, by such excellencies, has never beendenied. The Jesuit missionary called forth the praises of Baxter, andthe panegyric of Leibnitz. He went forth, without fear, to encounterthe most dreaded dangers. Martyrdom was nothing to him, for he knewthat the altar, which might stream with his blood, would, in aftertimes, be a cherished monument of his fame, and an impressive emblemof the power of his religion. Francis Xavier, one of the firstconverts of Loyola, a Spaniard of rank, traversed a tract of more thantwice the circumference of the globe, preaching, disputing, andbaptizing, until seventy thousand converts attested the fruits of hismission. In perils, fastings, and fatigues, was the life of thisremarkable man passed, to convert the heathen world; and his laborshave never been equalled, as a missionary, except by the apostle Paul. But China and Japan were not the only scenes of the enterprises ofJesuit missionaries. As early as 1634, they penetrated into Canada, and, shortly after to the sources of the Mississippi and the prairiesof Illinois. "My companion, " said the fearless Marquette, "is an envoyof France, to discover new countries; but I am an ambassador of God, to enlighten them with the gospel. " But of all the missions of theJesuits, those in Paraguay were the most successful. They theregathered together, in _reductions_, or villages, three hundredthousand Indians, and these were bound together by a common interest, were controlled by a paternal authority, taught useful arts, andtrained to enjoy the blessings of civilization. On the distant banksof the La Plata, while the Spanish colonists were hunting the Mexicansand Peruvians with bloodhounds, or the English slave traders wereconsigning to eternal bondage the unhappy Africans, the Jesuits wererealizing the ideal paradise of More--a Utopia, where no murders orrobberies were committed, and where the blessed flowers of peace andharmony bloomed in a garden of almost primeval loveliness. 

[Sidenote: Extraordinary Virtues of the Older Jesuits. ]

In that age, the Jesuit excelled in any work to which he devoted hisattention. He was not only an intrepid missionary, but a mostsuccessful teacher. Into the work of education he entered heart andsoul. He taught gratuitously, without any crabbed harshness, and witha view to gain the heart. He entered into the feelings of his pupils, and taught them to subdue their tempers, and avoid quarrels and oaths. He excited them to enthusiasm, perceived their merits, and rewardedthe successful with presents and favors. Hence the schools of theJesuits were the best in Europe, and were highly praised even by theProtestants. The Jesuits were even more popular as preachers than theywere as teachers; and they were equally prized as confessors. Theywere so successful and so respected, that they soon obtained anascendency in Europe. Veneration secured wealth, and theirestablishments gradually became magnificently endowed. But all theirinfluence was directed to one single end--to the building up of thepower of the popes, whose obedient servants they were. Can we wonderthat Catholicism should revive?

[Sidenote: The Constitution of the Jesuits. ]

Again, their constitution was wonderful, and admirably adapted to theends they had in view. Their vows were indeed substantially the sameas those of other monks, but there was among them a more practicalspirit of obedience. All the members were controlled by a singlewill--all were passive, instruments in the hands of the general of theorder. He appointed presidents of colleges and of religious houses;admitted, dismissed, dispensed, and punished at his pleasure. Hispower was irresponsible, and for life. From his will there was noappeal. There were among them many gradations in rank, but eachgradation was a gradation in slavery. The Jesuit was bound to obeyeven his own servant, if required by a superior. Obedience was thesoul of the institution, absolute, unconditional, and unreserved--eventhe submission of the will, to the entire abnegation of self. TheJesuit gloried in being made a puppet, a piece of machinery, like asoldier, if the loss of his intellectual independence would advancethe interests of his order. The _esprit de corps_ was perfectlywonderful, and this spirit was one secret of the disinterestedness ofthe body. "_Ad majorem Dei gloriam, _" was the motto emblazoned ontheir standards, and written on their hearts; but this glory of Godwas synonymous with the ascendency of their association. 

The unconditional obedience to a single will, which is the genius ofJesuitism, while it signally advanced the interests of the body, andof the pope, to whom they were devoted, still led to the mostdetestable and resistless spiritual despotism ever exercised by man. The Jesuit, especially when obscure and humble, was a tool, ratherthan an intriguer. He was bound hand and foot by the orders of hissuperiors, and they alone were responsible for his actions. 

[Sidenote: Degeneracy of the Jesuits. ]

We can easily see how the extraordinary virtues and attainments of theearly Jesuits, and the wonderful mechanism of their system, wouldpromote the growth of the order and the interests of Rome, before thesuspicions of good people would be aroused. It was a long time aftertheir piety had passed to fraud, their simplicity to cunning, theirpoverty to wealth, their humility to pride, and their indifference tothe world to cabals, intrigues, and crimes, before the change wasfelt. And, moreover, it was more than a century before the fruits ofthe system were fully reaped. With all the excellences of theirschools and missions, dangerous notions and customs were taught inthem, which gradually destroyed their efficacy. A bad system oftenworks well for a while, but always carries the seeds of decay andruin. It was so with the institution of Loyola, in spite of theenthusiasm and sincerity of the early members, and the masterly wisdomdisplayed by the founders. In after times, evils were perceived, whichhad, at first, escaped the eye. It was seen that the system ofeducation, though specious, and, in many respects, excellent, wascalculated to narrow the mind, while it filled it with knowledge. Young men, in their colleges, were taught blindly to follow a rigidmechanical code; they were closely watched; all books were taken fromthem of a liberal tendency; mutilated editions of such as could not bedenied only were allowed; truths of great importance were concealed orglossed over; exploded errors were revived, and studies recommendedwhich had no reference to the discussion of abstract questions ongovernment or religion. And the boys were made spies on each other, their spirits were broken, and their tastes perverted. The Jesuitssought to guard the avenues to thought, not to open them, were jealousof all independence of mind, and never sought to go beyond their age, or base any movement on ideal standards. 

[Sidenote: Evils in the Jesuit System. ]

Again, as preachers, though popular and eloquent, they devoted theirtalents to convert men to the _Roman church_ rather than to _God_. They were bigoted sectarians; strove to make men Catholics rather thanChristians. As missionaries, they were content with a mere nominalconversion. They gave men the crucifix, but not the Bible, and evenpermitted their converts to retain many of their ancient superstitionsand prejudices. And thus they usurped the authority of native rulers, and sought to impose on China and Japan their despotic yoke. Theygreatly enriched themselves in consequence of the credulity of thenatives, whom they flattered, and wielded an unlawful power. And thisis one reason why they were expelled, and why they made no permanentconquests among the millions they converted in Japan. They wished notonly to subjugate the European, but the Asiatic mind. Europe did notpresent a field sufficiently extensive for their cupidity andambition. 

Finally, as confessors, they were peculiarly indulgent to those whosought absolution, provided their submission was complete. Then it wasseen what an easy thing it was to bear the yoke of Christ. Theoffender was told that sin consisted in wilfulness, and wilfulness inthe perfect knowledge of the nature of sin, according to whichdoctrine blindness and passion were sufficient exculpations. Theyinvented the doctrine of mental reservation, on which Pascal was sosevere. Perjury was allowable, if the perjured were inwardlydetermined not to swear. A man might fight a duel, if in danger ofbeing stigmatized as a coward; he might betray his friend, if he couldthus benefit his party. The Jesuits invented a system of casuistrywhich confused all established ideas of moral obligation. Theytolerated, and some of them justified, crimes, if the same could bemade subservient to the apparent interests of the church. Theirprinciple was to do evil that good might come. Above all, theyconformed to the inclinations of the great, especially to those ofabsolute princes, on whom they imposed no painful penance, or austeredevotion. Their sympathies always were with absolutism, in all itsforms and they were the chosen and trusted agents of the despots ofmankind, until even the eyes of Europe were open to their vastambition, which sought to erect an independent empire within thelimits of despotism itself. But the corruptions of the Jesuits, theirsystem of casuistry, their lax morality, their disgraceful intrigues, their unprincipled rapacity, do not belong to the age we have now beenconsidering. These fruits of a bad system had not then been matured;and the infancy of the society was as beautiful as its latter dayswere disgraceful and fearful. In a future chapter, we shall glance atthe decline and fall of this celebrated institution--the best adaptedto its proposed ends of any system ever devised by the craft andwisdom of man. 

[Sidenote: The Popes in the Seventeenth Century. ]

The great patrons of the Jesuits--the popes and their empire in thesixteenth century, after the death of Luther--demand some notice. TheCatholic church, in this century, was remarkable for the reformationit attempted within its own body, and for the zeal, and ability, andvirtue, which marked the character of many of the popes themselves. Had it not been for this counter reformation, Protestantism would haveobtained a great ascendency in Europe. But the Protestants weredivided among themselves, while the Catholics were united, andanimated with singular zeal. They put forth their utmost energies toreconquer what they had lost. They did not succeed in this, but theysecured the ascendency, on the whole, of the Catholic cause in Europe. For this ascendency the popes are indebted to the Jesuits. 

[Sidenote: Nepotism of the Popes. ]

At the close of the sixteenth century, the popes possessed awell-situated, rich, and beautiful province. All writers celebratedits fertility. Scarcely a foot of land remained uncultivated. Corn wasexported, and the ports were filled with ships. The people werecourageous, and had great talents for business. The middle classeswere peaceful and contented, but the nobles, who held in their handsthe municipal authority, were turbulent, rapacious, and indifferent tointellectual culture. The popes were generally virtuous characters, and munificent patrons of genius. Gregory XIII. Kept a list of men inevery country who were likely to acquit themselves as bishops, andexhibited the greatest caution in appointing them. Sixtus V. , whosefather was an humble gardener, encouraged agriculture andmanufactures, husbanded the resources of the state, and filled Romewith statues. He raised the obelisk in front of St. Peter's, andcompleted the dome of the Cathedral. Clement VIII. Celebrated the masshimself, and scrupulously devoted himself to religious duties. He wascareless of the pleasures which formerly characterized the popes, andadmitted every day twelve poor persons to dine with him. Paul V. Hadequal talents and greater authority, but was bigoted and cold. Gregory XIV. Had all the severity of an ancient monk. The onlyreligious peculiarity of the popes, at the latter end of the sixteenthcentury, which we unhesitatingly condemn, was, their religiousintolerance. But they saw that their empire would pass away, unlessthey used vigorous and desperate measures to retain it. During thisperiod, the great victories of the Jesuits, the establishment of theircolleges, and the splendid endowments of their churches took place. Gregory XV. Built, at his own cost, the celebrated church of St. Ignatius, at Rome, and instituted the Propaganda, a missionaryinstitution, under the control of the Jesuits. 

[Sidenote: Rome in the Seventeenth Century. ]

The popes, whether good or bad, did not relinquish their nepotism inthis century, in consequence of which great families arose with everypope, and supplanted the old aristocracy. The Barberini family, in onepontificate, amassed one hundred and five millions of scudi--as greata fortune as that left by Mazarin. But they, enriched underUrban VII. , had to flee from Rome under Innocent X. Jealousy andcontention divided and distracted all the noble families, who viedwith each other in titles and pomp, ceremony and pride. The ladies ofthe Savelli family never quitted their palace walls, except in closelyveiled carriages. The Visconti decorated their walls with theportraits of the popes of their line. The Gaetana dwelt with pride onthe memory of Boniface VIII. The Colonna and Orsini boasted that forcenturies no peace had been concluded in Christendom, in which theyhad not been expressly included. But these old families had becomegradually impoverished, and yielded, in wealth and power, though notin pride and dignity, to the Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, Giustiniani, Chigi, and the Barberini. All these families, from which popes had sprung, had splendid palaces, villas, pictures, libraries, and statues; and they contributed to make Rome the centreof attraction for the elegant and the literary throughout Europe. Itwas still the moral and social centre of Christendom. It was a placeto which all strangers resorted, and from which all intrigues sprung. It was the scene of pleasure, gayety, and grandeur. And the splendidfabric, which was erected in the "ages of faith, " in spite of all thecalamities and ravages of time, remained still beautiful andattractive. Since the first secession, in the sixteenth century, Romehas lost none of her adherents, and those, who remained faithful, havebecome the more enthusiastic in their idolatry. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Ranke's History of the Popes. Father Bouhour's Life of Ignatius Loyola. A Life of Xavier, by the same author. Stephens's Essay on Loyola. Charlevoix's History of Paraguay. Pascal's Provincial Letters. Macaulay's Review of Ranke's History of the Popes. Bancroft's chapter, in the History of the United States, on the colonization of Canada. "Secreta Monita. " Histoire des Jésuites. "Spiritual Exercises. " Dr. Williams's Essay. History of Jesuit Missions. The works on the Jesuits are very numerous; but those which are most accessible are of a violent partisan character. Eugene Sue, in his "Wandering Jew, " has given false, but strong, impressions. Infidel writers have generally been the most bitter, with the exception of English and Scotch authors, in the seventeenth century. The great work of Ranke is the most impartial with which the author is acquainted. Ranke's histories should never be neglected, of which admirable translations have been made. 

CHAPTER X. 

THIRTY YEARS WAR. 

[Sidenote: Political Troubles after the Death of Luther. ]

The contests which arose from the discussion of religious ideas didnot close with the sixteenth century. They were, on the other hand, continued with still greater acrimony. Protestantism had beensuppressed in France, but not in Holland or Germany. In England, thestruggle was to continue, not between the Catholics and Protestants, but between different parties among the Protestants themselves. InGermany, a long and devastating war of thirty years was to be carriedon before even religious liberty could be guaranteed. 

This struggle is the most prominent event of the seventeenth centurybefore the English Revolution, and was attended with the mostimportant religious and political consequences. The event itself wasone of the chief political consequences of the Reformation. Indeed, all the events of this period either originated in, or became mixed upwith, questions of religion. 

From the very first agitation of the reform doctrines, the house ofAustria devoted against their adherents the whole of its immensepolitical power. Charles V. Resolved to suppress Protestantism, andwould have perhaps succeeded, had it not been for the various warswhich distracted his attention, and for the decided stand which theProtestant princes of Germany took respecting Luther and hisdoctrines. As early as 1530, was formed the league of Smalcalde, headed by the elector of Saxony, the most powerful of the Germanprinces, next to the archduke of Austria. The princes who formed thisleague, resolved to secure to their subjects the free exercise oftheir religion, in spite of all opposition from the Catholic powers. But hostilities did not commence until after Luther had breathed hislast. The Catholics gained a great victory at the battle of Mühlberg, when the Elector of Saxony was taken prisoner. With the treaty ofSmalcalde, the freedom of Germany seemed prostrate forever, and thepower of Austria reached its meridian. But the cause of libertyrevived under Maurice of Saxony, once its formidable enemy. All thefruits of victory were lost again in the congress of Passau, and thediet of Augsburg, when an equitable peace seemed guaranteed to theProtestants. 

[Sidenote: Diet of Augsburg. ]

The diet of Augsburg, 1555, the year of the resignation of Charles V. , divided Germany into two great political and religious parties, andrecognized the independence of each. The Protestants were no longerlooked upon as rebels, but as men who had a right to worship God asthey pleased. Still, in reality, all that the Lutherans gained wastoleration, not equality. The concessions of the Catholics were madeto necessity, not to justice. Hence, the treaty of Augsburg provedonly a truce, not a lasting peace. The boundaries of both parties weremarked out by the sword, and by the sword only were they to bepreserved. 

For a while, however, peace was preserved, and might have continuedlonger, had it not been for the dissensions of Protestants amongthemselves, caused by the followers of Calvin and Luther. TheLutherans would not include the Calvinists in their communion, and theCalvinists would not accede to the Lutheran church. During thesedissensions, the Jesuits sowed tares, and the Protestants lost thechance of establishing their perfect equality with the Catholics. 

Notwithstanding all the bitterness and jealousy which existed betweensects and parties, still the peace of Germany, in a political sense, was preserved during the reign of Ferdinand, the founder of the Germanbranch of the house of Austria, and who succeeded his brotherCharles V. On his death, in 1564, his son Maximilian II. , was chosenemperor, and during his reign, and until his death, in 1576, Germanyenjoyed tranquillity. His successor was his son Rodolph, a weakprince, and incapable of uniting the various territories which werehereditary in his family--Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia, Moravia, and Styria. There were troubles in each of these provinces, and one after another revolted, until Rodolph was left with but theempty title of emperor. But these provinces acknowledged the sway ofhis brother Matthias, who had delivered them from the Turks, and hadgranted the Protestants liberty of conscience. The emperor was weakenough to confirm his brother in his usurpation. In 1612, he died, andMatthias mounted the imperial throne. 

[Sidenote: Commencement of the Thirty Years War. ]

It was during the reign of this prince, that the Thirty Years' Warcommenced. In proportion as the reformed religion gained ground inHungary and Bohemia, --two provinces very difficult to rule, --theProtestant princes of the empire became desirous of securing andextending their privileges. Their demands were refused, and theyentered into a new confederacy, called the _Evangelical Union_. Thisassociation was opposed by another, called the _Catholic League_. Theformer was supported by Holland, England, and Henry IV. , of France. The humiliation of Austria was the great object of Henry in supportingthe Protestant princes of Germany, and he assembled an army of fortythousand men, which he designed to head himself. But, just as hispreparations were completed, he was assassinated, and his death andthe dissensions in the Austrian family prevented the war breaking outwith the fury which afterwards characterized it. 

The Emperor Matthias died in 1618, and was succeeded by his cousinFerdinand, Duke of Styria, who was an inveterate enemy to theProtestant cause. His first care was to suppress the insurrection ofthe Protestants, which, just before his accession had broken out inBohemia, under the celebrated Count Mansfeldt. The Bohemians renouncedallegiance to Ferdinand II. , and chose Frederic V. , elector palatine, for their king. Frederic unwisely accepted the crown, which confirmedthe quarrel between Ferdinand and the Bohemians. Frederic was secondedby all the Protestant princes, except the Elector of Saxony, by twothousand four hundred English volunteers, and by eight thousand troopsfrom the United Provinces. But Ferdinand, assisted by the king ofSpain and all the Catholic princes, was more than a match forFrederic, who wasted his time and strength in vain displays ofsovereignty. Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, commanded the forces of theCatholics, who, with twenty-five thousand troops from the LowCountries, invaded Bohemia. The Bohemian forces did not amount tothirty thousand, but they intrenched themselves near Prague, wherethey were attacked (1620) and routed, with immense slaughter. Thebattle of Prague decided the fate of Bohemia, put Frederic inpossession of all his dominions, and invested him with an authorityequal to what any of his predecessors had enjoyed. All his wishes weregratified, and, had he been wise, he might have maintained hisascendency in Germany. But he was blinded by his success, and, from arebellion in Bohemia, the war extended through Germany, and afterwardsthroughout Europe. 

[Sidenote: The Emperor Frederic. ]

The emperor had regained his dominions by the victorious arms ofMaximilian, Duke of Bavaria. To compensate him, without detriment tohimself, he resolved to bestow upon him the dominions of the CountPalatine of the Rhine, who had injudiciously accepted the crown ofBohemia. Frederic must be totally ruined. He was put under the ban ofthe empire, and his territories were devastated by the Spanish generalSpinola, with an army of twenty-five thousand men. 

Apparently there was no hope for Frederic, or the Protestant cause. The only Protestant princes capable of arresting the Austrianencroachments were the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg. But theformer, John George, preferred the aggrandizement of his house to theemancipation of his country, and tamely witnessed the victories of theemperor, without raising an arm for the relief of the Protestants, ofwhom he was the acknowledged head. George William of Brandenburg wasstill more shamefully fettered by the fear of Austria, and of losinghis dominions; and he, too, cautiously avoided committing himself toeither party. 

But while these two great princes ingloriously abandoned Frederic tohis fate, a single soldier of fortune, whose only treasure was hissword, Ernest Count Mansfield, dared, in the Bohemian town of Pilsen, to defy the whole power of Austria. Undismayed by the reverses of theelector palatine, he succeeded in enlisting an army of twenty thousandmen. With such an army, the cause of Frederic was not irretrievablylost. New prospects began to open, and his misfortunes raised upunexpected friends. James of England opened his treasures, andChristian of Denmark offered his powerful support. Mansfeldt was alsojoined by the Margrave of Baden. The courage of the count palatinerevived, and he labored assiduously to arouse his Protestant brethren. Meanwhile, the generals of the emperor were on the alert, and therising hopes of Frederic were dissipated by the victories of Tilly. The count palatine was again driven from his hereditary dominions, andsought refuge in Holland. 

[Sidenote: Count Wallenstein. ]

But, though the emperor was successful, his finances were exhausted, and he was disagreeably dependent on Bavaria. Under his circumstances, nothing was more welcome than the proposal of Wallenstein, anexperienced officer, and the richest nobleman in Bohemia. 

[Sidenote: Character of Wallenstein. ]

He offered, at his own expense, and that of his friends, to raise, clothe, and maintain an army for the emperor, if he were allowed toaugment it to fifty thousand men. His project was ridiculed asvisionary; but the offer was too valuable to be rejected. In a fewmonths, he had collected an army of thirty thousand. His reputation, the prospect of promotion, and the hope of plunder, attractedadventurers from all parts of Germany. Knowing that so large a bodycould not be held together without great resources, and having none ofhis own, he marched his troops into the most fertile territories, which had not yet suffered from the war, where they subsisted bycontributions and plunder, as obnoxious to their friends as they wereto their enemies. Nothing shows the weakness of the imperial power, with all its apparent strength, and the barbarous notions and customsof the country, more than this grant to Wallenstein. And, with all hisheroism and success, he cannot now be viewed in any other light thanas a licensed robber. He was virtually at the head of a troop ofbanditti, who fought for the sake of plunder, and who would join anyside which would present the greatest hopes of gain. The genius ofSchiller, both in his dramas and histories, has immortalized the nameof this unprincipled hero, and has excited a strange interest in hisperson, his family, and his fortunes. He is represented as "born tocommand. His acute eye distinguished at a glance, from among themultitude, such as were competent, and he assigned to each his properplace. His praise, from being rarely bestowed, animated and broughtinto full operation every faculty; while his steady, reserved, andearnest demeanor secured obedience and discipline. His very appearanceexcited awe and reverence; his figure was proud, lofty, and warlike, while his bright, piercing eye expressed profundity of thought, combined with gravity and mystery. His favorite study was that of thestars, and his most intimate friend was an Italian astrologer. He hada fondness for pomp and extravagance. He maintained sixty pages; hisante-chamber was guarded by fifty life-guards, and his table neverconsisted of less than one hundred covers. Six barons and as manyknights were in constant attendance on his person. He never smiled, and the coldness of his temperament was proof against sensualseductions. Ever occupied with grand schemes, he despised thoseamusements in which so many waste their lives. Terror was the talismanwith which he worked: extreme in his punishments as in his rewards, heknew how to keep alive the zeal of his followers, while no general ofancient or modern times could boast of being obeyed with equalalacrity. Submission to his will was more prized by him than bravery, and he kept up the obedience of his troops by capricious orders. Hewas a man of large stature, thin, of a sallow complexion, with short, red hair, and small, sparkling eyes. A gloomy and forbiddingseriousness sat upon his brow, and his munificent presents aloneretained the trembling crowd of his dependants. "

Such was this enterprising nobleman, to whom the emperor Ferdinandcommitted so great authority. And the success of Wallensteinapparently justified the course of the emperor. The greater hisextortions, and the greater his rewards, the greater was the concourseto his standard. Such is human nature. It is said that, in sevenyears, Wallenstein exacted not less than sixty millions of dollarsfrom one half of Germany--an incredible sum, when the expenditure ofthe government of England, at this time, was less than two millionpounds a year. His armies flourished, while the states through whichthey passed were ruined. What cared he for the curses of the people, or the complaints of princes, so long as his army adored him? It washis object to humble all the princes of the empire, and make himselfso necessary to the emperor that he would gradually sink to become histool. He already was created Duke of Friedland, and generalissimo ofthe imperial armies. Nor had his victorious career met with any severecheck, but uninterrupted success seemed to promise the realization ofhis vast ambition. Germany lay bleeding at his feet, helpless andindignant. 

But the greatness and the insolence of Wallenstein raised up enemiesagainst him in all parts of the empire. Fear and jealousy increasedthe opposition, even in the ranks of the Catholics. His dismissal wasdemanded by the whole college of electors, and even by Spain. Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, felt himself eclipsed by the successfulgeneral, and was at the head of the cabals against him. 

The emperor felt, at this crisis, as Ganganelli did when compelled todisband the Jesuits, that he was parting with the man to whom he owedall his supremacy. Long was he undecided whether or not he would makethe sacrifice. But all Germany was clamorous, and the disgrace ofWallenstein was ordained. 

Would the ambitious chieftain, at the head of one hundred thousanddevoted soldiers, regard the commands of the emperor? He made up hismind to obey, looking to the future for revenge, and feeling that hecould afford to wait for it. Seni had read in the stars that gloriousprospects still awaited him. Wallenstein retired to his estates inBohemia, but maintained the pomp and splendor of a prince of theempire. 

[Sidenote: Gustavus Adolphus. ]

Scarcely had he retired from the command of the army before hisservices were again demanded. One hero produces another. A Wellingtonis ever found to oppose a Napoleon. Providence raised up a friend toGermany, in its distress, in the person of Gustavus Adolphus, King ofSweden. It was not for personal aggrandizement that he lent hispowerful arm to the Protestant princes, who, thus far, had vainlystruggled against Maximilian, Tilly, and Wallenstein. Zeal forProtestantism, added to strong provocations, induced him to land inGermany with fifteen thousand men--a small body to oppose thevictorious troops of the emperor, but they were brave and highlydisciplined, and devoted to their royal master. He himself wasindisputably the greatest general of the age, and had the fullconfidence of the Protestant princes, who were ready to rally themoment he obtained any signal advantage. Henceforth, Gustavus Adolphuswas the hero of the war. He was more than a hero; he was a Christian, regardful of the morals of his soldiers, and devoted to the interestsof spiritual religion. He was frugal, yet generous, serene in thegreatest danger; and magnanimous beyond all precedent in the historyof kings. On the 20th of May, 1630, taking his daughter Christiana inhis arms, then only four years of age, he presented her to the statesas their future sovereign, and made his farewell address. "Notlightly, not wantonly, " said he, "am I about to involve myself and youin this new and dangerous war. God is my witness that I do not fightto gratify my own ambition; but the emperor has wronged me, hassupported my enemies, persecuted my friends, trampled my religion inthe dust, and even stretched forth his revengeful arm against mycrown. The oppressed states of Germany call loudly for aid, which, byGod's help, we will give them. 

"I am fully sensible of the dangers to which my life will be exposed. I have never yet shrunk from them, nor is it likely that I shallalways escape them. Hitherto, Providence has protected me; but I shallat last fall in defence of my country and my faith. I commend you tothe protection of Heaven. Be just, conscientious, and upright, and weshall meet again in eternity. For the prosperity of all my subjects, Ioffer my warmest prayer to Heaven; and bid you all a sincere--it maybe an eternal--farewell. "

He had scarcely landed in Germany before his victorious career began. France concluded a treaty with him, and he advanced against Tilly, whonow headed the imperial armies. 

[Sidenote: Loss of Magdeburg. ]

The tardiness of the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg in renderingassistance caused the loss of Magdeburg, the most important fortressof the Protestants. It was taken by assault, even while Gustavus wasadvancing to its relief. No pen can paint, and no imagination canconceive, the horrors which were perpetrated by the imperial soldiersin the sack of that unfortunate place. Neither childhood nor helplessage--neither youth, beauty, sex, nor rank could disarm the fury of theconquerors. No situation or retreat was sacred. In a single churchfifty-three women were beheaded. The Croats amused themselves withthrowing children into the flames. Pappenheim's Walloons stabbedinfants at the breast. The city was reduced to ashes, and thirtythousand of the inhabitants were slain. 

But the loss of this important city was soon compensated by the battleof Leipsic, 1630, which the King of Sweden gained over the imperialforces, and in which the Elector of Saxony at last rendered valuableaid. The rout of Tilly, hitherto victorious, was complete, and hehimself escaped only by chance. Saxony was freed from the enemy, whileBohemia, Moravia, Austria, and Hungary, were stripped of theirdefenders. Ferdinand was no longer secure in his capital; the freedomof Germany was secured. Gustavus was every where hailed as adeliverer, and admiration for his genius was only equalled by theadmiration of his virtues. He rapidly regained all that theProtestants had lost, and the fruits of twelve years of war weresnatched away from the emperor. Tilly was soon after killed, and allthings indicated the complete triumph of the Protestants. 

It was now the turn of Ferdinand to tremble. The only person who couldsave him was dismissed and disgraced. Tilly was dead. Munich andPrague were in the hands of the Protestants, while the king of Swedentraversed Germany as a conqueror, law giver, and judge. No fortresswas inaccessible; no river checked his victorious career. The Swedishstandards were planted in Bavaria, Bohemia, the Palatinate, Saxony, and along the banks of the Rhine. Meanwhile the Turks were preparingto attack Hungary, and a dangerous insurrection threatened his owncapital. None came to his assistance in the hour of peril. On allsides, he was surrounded by hostile armies, while his own forces weredispirited and treacherous. 

[Sidenote: Wallenstein Reinstated in Power. ]

From such a hopeless state he was rescued by the man whom he hadinjured, but not until he had himself to beg his assistance. Wallenstein was in retirement, and secretly rejoiced in the victoriesof the Swedish king, knowing full well that the emperor would soon becompelled to summon him again to command his armies. Now he coulddictate his terms. Now he could humiliate his sovereign, and at thesame time obtain all the power his ambition craved. He declinedentering his service unless he had the unlimited command of all thearmies of Austria and Spain. No commission in the army was to begranted by the emperor, without his own approval. He demanded theordinary pay, and an imperial hereditary estate. In short, he demandedsovereign authority; and with such humiliating terms the emperor, inhis necessities, was obliged to comply. 

[Sidenote: Death of Gustavus Adolphus. ]

No sooner did he raise his standard, than it was resorted to by theunprincipled, the rapacious, and the needy from all parts of theempire. But Wallenstein now resolved to pursue, exclusively, his ownselfish interests, and directed all his aims to independentsovereignty. When his forces were united with those of Maximilian, hefound himself at the head of sixty thousand men. Then really commencedthe severity of the contest, for Wallenstein was now stronger thanGustavus. Nevertheless, the heroic Swede offered to give his rivalbattle at Nuremburg, which was declined. He then attacked his camp, but was repulsed with loss. At last, the two generals met on theplains of Lutzen, in Saxony, 1632. During the whole course of the war, two such generals had not been pitted against each other, nor had somuch been staked on the chance of a battle. Victory declared for thetroops of Gustavus, but the heroic leader himself was killed, in thefulness of his glory. It was his fortune to die with an untarnishedfame. "By an untimely death, " says Schiller, "his protecting geniusrescued him from the inevitable fate of man--that of forgettingmoderation in the intoxication of success, and justice in theplenitude of power. It may be doubted whether, had he lived longer, hewould still have deserved the tears which Germany shed over his grave, or maintained his title to the admiration with which posterity regardshim, --as the first and only just conqueror that the world hasproduced. But it was no longer the benefactor of Germany who fell atLutzen; the beneficent part of his career Gustavus Adolphus hadalready terminated; and now the greatest service which he could renderto the liberties of Germany was--to die. The all-engrossing power ofan individual was at an end; the equivocal assistance of anover-powerful protector gave place to a more noble self-exertion onthe part of the estates; and those who formerly were the mereinstruments of his aggrandizement, now began to work for themselves. The ambition of the Swedish monarch aspired, unquestionably, toestablish a power within Germany inconsistent with the liberties ofthe estates. His aim was the imperial crown; and this dignity, supported by his power, would be liable to more abuse than had everbeen feared from the house of Austria. His sudden disappearancesecured the liberties of Germany, and saved his own reputation, whileit probably spared him the mortification of seeing his own allies inarms against him, and all the fruits of his victories torn from him bya disadvantageous peace. "

After the battle of Lutzen we almost lose sight of Wallenstein, and novictories were commensurate with his reputation and abilities. Hecontinued inactive in Bohemia, while all Europe was awaiting theexploits which should efface the remembrance of his defeat. Heexhausted the imperial provinces by enormous contributions, and hiswhole conduct seems singular and treacherous. His enemies at theimperial court now renewed their intrigues, and his conduct wasreviewed with the most malicious criticism. But he possessed too greatpower to be openly assailed by the emperor, and measures wereconcerted to remove him by treachery. Wallenstein obtained notice ofthe designs against him, and now, too late, resolved on an openrevolt. But he was betrayed, and his own generals, on whom he counted, deserted him, so soon as the emperor dared to deprive him of hiscommand. But he was only removed by assassination, and just at themoment when he deemed himself secure against the whole power of theemperor. No man, however great, can stand before an authority which isuniversally deemed legitimate, however reduced and weakened thatauthority may be. In times of anarchy and revolution, there isconfusion in men's minds respecting the persons in whom legitimateauthority should be lodged, and this is the only reason why rebellionis ever successful. 

[Sidenote: Assassination of Wallenstein. ]

[Sidenote: Treaty of Westphalia. ]

The death of Wallenstein, in 1634, did not terminate the war. It ragedeleven years longer, with various success, and involved the otherEuropean powers. France was then governed by Cardinal Richelieu, who, notwithstanding his Catholicism, lent assistance to the Protestants, with a view of reducing the power of Austria. Indeed, the war haddestroyed the sentiments which produced it, and political motivesbecame stronger than religious. Oxenstiern and Richelieu became themaster spirits of the contest, and, in the recesses of their cabinets, regulated the campaigns of their generals. Battles were lost and wonon both sides, and innumerable intrigues were plotted by interestedstatesmen. After all parties had exhausted their resources, andGermany was deluged with the blood of Spaniards, Hollanders, Frenchmen, Swedes, besides that of her own sons, the peace ofWestphalia was concluded, (1648, )--the most important treaty in thehistory of Europe. All the princes and states of the empire werereëstablished in the lands, rights, and prerogatives which theyenjoyed before the troubles in Bohemia, in 1619. The religiousliberties of the Lutherans and Calvinists were guaranteed, and it wasstipulated that the Imperial Chamber should consist of twenty-fourProtestant members and twenty-six Catholic, and that the emperorshould receive six Protestants into the Aulic Council, the highestjudicial tribunal in the empire. This peace is the foundation of thewhole system of modern European politics, of all modern treaties, ofthat which is called the freedom of Germany, and of a sort of balanceof power among all the countries of Western Europe. Dearly was itpurchased, by the perfect exhaustion of national energies, and thedemoralizing sentiments which one of the longest and bloodiest wars inhuman history inevitably introduced. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Schiller's History of the Thirty Years' War. Russell's Modern Europe. Coleridge's Translation of Wallenstein. Kohlrausch's History of Germany. See also a history of Germany in Dr. Lardner's Cyclopedia. History of Sweden. Plank on the Political Consequences of the Reformation. The History of Schiller, however is a classic, and is exceedingly interesting and beautiful. 

CHAPTER XI. 

ADMINISTRATIONS OF CARDINALS RICHELIEU AND MAZARIN. 

While Germany was rent with civil commotions, and the power of theemperors was limited by the stand taken against it by the Protestantprinces, France was ruled with an iron hand, and a foundation was laidfor the despotism of Louis XIV. The energetic genius of CardinalRichelieu, during the whole period of the thirty years' war, affectedthe councils of all the different courts of Europe. He wasindisputably the greatest statesman of his age and nation. To himFrance is chiefly indebted for the ascendency she enjoyed in theseventeenth century. Had Henry IV. Lived to the age of Louis XIV. , France would probably have been permanently greater, although thepower of the king might not have been so absolute. 

[Sidenote: Regency of Mary de Medicis. ]

When Henry IV. Died, he left his kingdom to his son Louis XIII. , achild nine years of age. The first thing to be done was theappointment of a regent. The Parliament of Paris, in whom this rightseems to have been vested, nominated the queen mother, Mary deMedicis, and the young king, in a bed of justice, --the greatest of theroyal prerogatives, --confirmed his mother in the regency. Her regencywas any thing but favorable to the interests of the kingdom. Thepolicy of the late king was disregarded, and a new course of measureswas adopted. Sully, through whose counsels the reign of Henry IV. Hadbeen so beneficent, was dismissed. The queen regent had no sympathywith his views. Neither the corrupt court nor the powerful aristocracycared any thing for the interests of the people, for the improvementof agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, for the regulation of thefinances, or for increasing the productive industry of the country, onwhich its material prosperity ever depends. The greedy courtiersobtained from a lavish queen the treasures which the wise care ofHenry had amassed, and which he thoughtlessly bestowed in order tosecure their fidelity. The foreign policy also was changed, and astrong alliance was made with the pope, with Spain, and with theJesuits. 

On the retirement of the able and incorruptible Sully, favorites of notalent or worth arose to power. Concini, an Italian, controlled thequeen regent, and through him all her favors flowed. He was succeededby Luynes, a mere falconer, who made himself agreeable to the youngking, and usurped the power of Concini, when the king attained hismajority. He became constable of France, the highest officer in therealm, and surpassed all the old nobility in arrogance and cupidity. His mismanagement and selfishness led to an insurrection of some ofthe great nobles among whom were Condé and D'Épernon. 

[Sidenote: Rise of Cardinal de Richelieu. ]

While the kingdom was thus convulsed with civil war, and in every waymismanaged, Richelieu, Bishop of Luçon, appeared upon the stage. Hewas a man of high birth, was made doctor of the Sorbonne at the age oftwenty-two, and, before he was twenty-five, a bishop. During theascendency of Mancini, he attracted the attention of the queen, andwas selected as secretary of state. Soon after the death of Luynes, heobtained a cardinal's hat, and a seat in the council. The moment hespoke, his genius predominated, and the monarch, with all his pride, bowed to the ascendency of intellect, and yielded, with a good grace, to a man whom it was impolitic to resist. 

From that moment, in 1622, the reins of empire were in the hands of amaster, and the king himself, were it not for the splendor of hiscourt, would have disappeared from the eye, both of statesmen andhistorians. The reign of anarchy, for a quarter of a century, atleast, was over, and the way was prepared for the aggrandizement ofthe French monarchy. When Richelieu came into power, universaldisorder prevailed. The finances were deranged, the Huguenots weretroublesome, and the nobles were rebellious. Such was the internalstate of France, --weakened, distracted, and anarchical. She had losther position among the great powers, and Austria threatened tooverturn the political relations of all the states of Europe. Austria, in the early part of the seventeenth century, was, unquestionably, theleading power in Christendom, and her ascendency boded no good to theliberties which men were beginning to assert. 

[Sidenote: Suppression of the Huguenots. ]

Three great objects animated the genius of Richelieu, and in theattainment of these he was successful. These were, the suppression ofthe Huguenots, as a powerful party, the humiliation of the greatbarons, and the reduction of the power of Austria. For these objectshe perseveringly contended for twenty years; and his struggles andintrigues to secure these ends constitute the history of France duringthe reign of Louis XIII. And they affected not only France, but thewhole continent. His policy was to preserve peace with England andSpain, --the hereditary enemies of France, --with Sweden, and with theProtestants of Germany, even while he suppressed their religion withinhis own realm. It was the true policy of England to prevent the ruinof the Huguenots in France, as before she had aided the Protestants inHolland. But, unfortunately, England was then ruled by James andCharles, and they were controlled by profligate ministers, who werethe tools of the crafty cardinal. A feeble assistance was rendered byJames, but it availed nothing. 

In order to annihilate the political power of the Huguenots, --forRichelieu cared more for this than for their religious opinions, --itwas necessary that he should possess himself of the city of LaRochelle, on the Bay of Biscay, a strong fortress, which had resisted, during the reign of Charles IX. , the whole power of the Catholics, andwhich continued to be the stronghold of the Huguenots. Here they couldalways retire and be safe, in times of danger. It was stronglyfortified by sea, as well as by land; and only a vigorous blockadecould exclude provisions and military stores from the people. ButEngland was mistress of the ocean, and supplies from her would alwaysrelieve the besieged. 

After ineffectual but vigorous attempts to take the city by land, Richelieu determined to shut up its harbor, first by stakes, and thenby a boom. Both of these measures failed. But the military genius ofthe cardinal was equal to his talents as a statesman. He rememberedwhat Alexander did at the siege of Tyre. So, with a volume of QuintusCurtius in his hand, he projected and finished a mole, half a mile inlength, across a gulf, into which the tide flowed. In some places, itwas eight hundred and forty feet below the surface of the water, andsixty feet in breadth. At first, the besieged laughed at an attempt sogigantic and difficult. But the work steadily progressed, and the citywas finally cut off from communication with the sea. The besieged, wasted by famine, surrendered; the fortifications were destroyed, thetown lost its independence, and the power of the Huguenots was brokenforever. But no vengeance was taken on the heroic citizens, and theywere even permitted to enjoy their religion. Fifteen thousand, however, perished at this memorable siege. 

The next object of Richelieu was the humiliation of Austria. But thedetail of his military operations would be complicated and tedious, since no grand and decisive battles were fought by his generals, andno able commanders appeared. Turenne and Condé belonged to the nextage. The military operations consisted in frontier skirmishes, idlesieges, and fitful expeditions, in which, however, the cardinal hadthe advantage, and by which he gained, since he could better afford topay for them. War is always ruinously expensive, and that partygenerally is successful which can the longer furnish resources. It isa proof that religious bigotry did not mainly influence him, since hesupported the Protestant party. All motives of a religious kind wereabsorbed in his prevailing passion to aggrandize the French monarchy. Had it not been for the intrigues and forces of Richelieu, the peaceof Westphalia might not have been secured, and Austria might againhave overturned the "Balance of Power. "

[Sidenote: The Depression of the Great Nobles. ]

The third great aim of the minister, and the one which he mostsystematically pursued to the close of his life, was the depression ofthe nobles, whose power was dangerously exercised. They had almostfeudal privileges, were enormously wealthy, numerous, corrupt, anddissolute. His efforts to suppress their power raised up numerousconspiracies. 

Among the earliest was one supported by the queen mother and Gaston, Duke of Orleans, brother to the king, and presumptive heir to thethrone. Connected with this conspiracy were the Dukes of Bourbon andVendome, the Prince de Chalais, and several others of the highestrank. It was intended to assassinate the cardinal and seize the reinsof government. But he got timely notice of the plot, informed theking, and guarded himself. The conspirators were too formidable to bepunished in a body; so he dissembled and resolved to cut them off indetail. He moreover threatened the king with resignation, andfrightened him by predicting a civil war. In consequence, the kinggave orders to arrest his brothers, the Dukes of Bourbon and Vendome, while the Prince of Chalais was executed. The Duke of Orleans, on theconfession of Chalais, fled from the kingdom. The queen mother wasarrested, Bassompierre was imprisoned in the Bastile, and the Duke ofGuise sent on a pilgrimage to Rome. The powerful D'Épernon sued forpardon. 

Still Richelieu was not satisfied. He resolved to humble theparliament, because it had opposed an ordinance of the king declaringthe partisans of the Duke of Orleans guilty of treason. It had rightlyargued that such a condemnation could not be issued without a trial. "But, " said the artful minister to the weak-minded king, "to refuse toverify a declaration which you yourself announced to the members ofparliament, is to doubt your authority. " An extraordinary council wasconvened, and the parliament, which was simply a court of judges, wassummoned to the royal presence. They went in solemn procession, carrying with them the record which showed their refusal to registerthe edict. The king received them with stately pomp. They wererequired to kneel in his presence, and their decree was taken from therecord and torn in pieces before their eyes, and the leading memberswere suspended and banished. 

The Court of Aids, by whom the money edicts were registered, alsoshowed opposition. The members left the court when the next edict wasto be registered. But they were suspended, until they humbly came toterms. 

"All the malcontents, the queen, the prince, the nobles, theparliament, and the Court of Aids hoped for the support of the people, and all were disappointed. " And this is the reason why they failed andRichelieu triumphed. There never have been, among the French, disinterestedness and union in the cause of liberty, which never canbe gained without perseverance and self-sacrifice. 

The next usurpation of Richelieu was the erection of a new tribunalfor trying state criminals, in which no record of its proceedingsshould be preserved, and the members of which should be selected byhimself. This court was worse than that of the Star Chamber. 

Richelieu showed a still more culpable disregard of the forms ofjustice in the trial of Marshal Marrillac, charged with crimes in theconduct of the army. He was brought before a commission, and notbefore his peers, condemned, and executed. 

In view of this judicial murder, the nobles, generally, were filledwith indignation and alarm. They now saw that the minister aimed atthe complete humiliation of their order, and therefore made anothereffort to resist the cardinal. At the head of this conspiracy was theDuke of Montmorency, admiral and constable of France, one of the mostpowerful nobles in the kingdom. He was governor of Provence, anddeeply resented the insult offered to his rank in the condemnation ofMarrillac. He moreover felt indignant that the king's brother shouldbe driven into exile by the hostility of a priest. He therefore joinedhis forces with those of the Duke of Orleans, was defeated, tried, andexecuted for rebellion, against the entreaty and intercession of themost powerful families. 

[Sidenote: Power of Richelieu. ]

The cardinal minister was now triumphant over all his enemies. He haddestroyed the political power of the Huguenots, extended the boundaryof France, and decimated the nobles. He now turned his attention tothe internal administration of the kingdom. He created a nationalnavy, protected commerce and industry, rewarded genius, and formed theFrench Academy. He attained a greater pitch of greatness than anysubject ever before or since enjoyed in his country, greater even thanwas possessed by Wolsey. Wolsey, powerful as he was, lived, like aTurkish vizier, in constant fear of his capricious master. ButRichelieu controlled the king himself. Louis XIII. Feared him, andfelt that he could not reign without him. He did not love thecardinal, and was often tempted to dismiss him, but could never summonsufficient resolution. Richelieu was more powerful than the queenmother, the brothers of the king, the royal mistresses, or even allunited, since he obtained an ascendency over all, doomed the queenmother to languish in exile at Cologne, and compelled the duke ofOrleans to succumb to him. He was chief of three of the principalmonastic orders, and possessed enormous wealth. He erected a palace asgrand as Hampton Court, and appeared in public with great pomp andceremony. 

[Sidenote: Character of Richelieu. ]

But an end came to his greatness. In 1642, a mortal malady wasted himaway; he summoned to his death bed his royal master; recommendedMazarin as his successor; and died like a man who knew no remorse, inthe fifty-eighth year of his age, and the eighteenth of his reign asminister. He was eloquent, but his words served only to disguise hissentiments; he was direct and frank in his speech, and yet a perfectmaster of the art of dissimulation; he could not be imposed upon, andyet was passionately fond of flattery, which he liked in such largedoses that it seemed hyperbolical; he was not learned, yet appreciatedlearning in others, and magnificently rewarded it; he was fond ofpleasure, and easily fascinated by women, and yet was cold, politic, implacable, and cruel. But he was a great statesman, and aimed tosuppress anarchy and preserve law. In view of his labors to preserveorder, we may almost excuse his severity. "Placed, " says Montrésor, asquoted by Miss Pardoe, "at an equal distance between Louis IX. , whoseaim was to abolish feudality, and the national convention, whoseattempt was to crush aristocracy, he appeared, like them, to havereceived a mission of blood from heaven. " The high nobility, repulsedunder Louis XI. And Francis I. , almost entirely succumbed underRichelieu, preparing, by its overthrow, the calm, unitarian, anddespotic reign of Louis XIV. , who looked around him in vain for agreat noble, and found only courtiers. The great rebellion, which, fornearly two centuries, agitated France, almost entirely disappearedunder the ministry of the cardinal. The Guises, who had touched withtheir hand the sceptre of Henry III. , the Condés, who had placed theirfoot on the steps of the throne of Henry IV. , and Gaston, who hadtried upon his brow the crown of Louis XIII. , --all returned, at thevoice of the minister, if not into nothingness, at least intoimpotency. All who struggled against the iron will, enclosed in thatfeeble body, were broken like glass. And all the struggle whichRichelieu sustained, he did not sustain for his own sake, but for thatof France. All the enemies, against whom he contended, were not hisenemies merely, but those of the kingdom. If he clung tenaciously bythe side of a king, whom he compelled to live a melancholy, unhappy, and isolated life, whom he deprived successively of his friends, ofhis mistresses, and of his family, as a tree is stripped of itsleaves, of its branches, and of its bark, it was because friends, mistresses, and family exhausted the sap of the expiring royalty, which had need of all its egotism to prevent it from perishing. For itwas not intestinal struggles merely, --there was also foreign war, which had connected itself fatally with them. All those great nobleswhom he decimated, all those princes of the blood whom he exiled, wereinviting foreigners to France; and these foreigners, answering eagerlyto the summons, were entering the country on three differentsides, --the English by Guienne, the Spaniards by Roussillon, and theAustrians by Artois. 

[Sidenote: Effects of Richelieu's Policy. ]

"He repulsed the English by driving them to the Isle of Ré, and bybesieging La Rochelle; the Spaniards, by creating beside them the newkingdom of Portugal; and the imperialists, by detaching Bavaria fromits alliance, by suspending their treaty with Denmark, and by sowingdissensions in the Catholic league. His measures were cruel, but notuncalled for. Chalais fell, but he had conspired with Lorraine andSpain; Montmorency fell, but he had entered France with arms in hishand; Cinq-Mars fell, but he had invited foreigners into the kingdom. Bred a simple priest, he became not only a great statesman, but agreat general. And when La Rochelle fell before those measures towhich Schomberg and Bassompierre were compelled to bow, he said to theking, 'Sire, I am no prophet, but I assure your majesty that if youwill condescend to act as I advise you, you will pacificate Italy inthe month of May, subjugate Languedoc in the month of July, and be onyour return in the month of August. ' And each of these prophecies heaccomplished in its time and place, and in such wise that, from thatmoment, Louis XIII. Vowed to follow forever the counsels of a man bywhich he had so well profited. Finally, he died, as Montesquieuasserts, after having made the monarch enact the secondary characterin the monarchy, but the first in Europe; after having abased theking, but after having made his reign illustrious; and after havingmowed down rebellion so close to the soil, that the descendants ofthose who had composed the league could only form the Fronde, as, after the reign of Napoleon, the successors of the La Vendée of '93could only execute the Vendée of '32. "

Louis XIII. Did not long survive this greatest of ministers. Naturallyweak, he was still weaker by disease. He was reduced to skin and bone. In this state, he called a council, nominated his queen, Anne ofAustria, regent, during the minority of his son Louis XIV. , then fouryears of age, and shortly after died, in 1643. 

[Sidenote: Richelieu's Policy. ]

Mazarin, the new minister, followed out the policy of Richelieu. Thewar with Austria and Spain was continued, which was closed, on theSpanish side, by the victory of Rocroi, in 1643, obtained by thePrince of Condé, and in which battle twenty-three thousand Frenchmencompletely routed twenty-six thousand Spaniards, killing eightthousand, and taking six thousand prisoners--one of the bloodiestbattles ever fought. The great Condé here obtained those laurels whichsubsequent disgrace could never take away. The war on the side ofGermany was closed, in 1648, by the peace of Westphalia. Turenne firstappeared in the latter campaign of this long war, but gained no signalvictory. 

Cardinal Mazarin, a subtle and intriguing Italian, while he pursuedthe policy of Richelieu, had not his genius or success. He was sooninvolved in domestic troubles. The aristocracy rebelled. Had they beenunited, they would have succeeded; but their rivalries, jealousies, and squabbles divided their strength and distracted their councils. Their cause was lost, and Mazarin triumphed, more from their divisionsthan from his own strength. 

He first had to oppose a clique of young nobles, full of arrogance andself-conceit, but scions of the greatest families. They hoped torecover the ancient ascendency of their houses. The chief of thesewere the Dukes of Beaufort, Épernon, and Guise. They made use, astheir tool, of Madame Chevreuse, the confidential friend of the queenregent. And she demanded of the minister that posts of honor and powershould be given to her friends, which would secure that independencewhich Richelieu had spent his life in restraining. Mazarin tried toamuse her, but, she being inexorable, he was obliged to break withher, and a conspiracy was the result, which, however, was easilysuppressed. 

[Sidenote: Cardinal de Retz. ]

But a more formidable enemy appeared in the person of De Retz, coadjutor archbishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, a man ofboundless intrigue, unconquerable ambition, and restless discontent. To detail his plots and intrigues, would be to describe a labyrinth. He succeeded, however, in keeping the country in perpetual turmoil, now inflaming the minds of the people, then exciting insurrectionsamong the nobles, and then, again, encouraging the parliaments inresistance. He never appeared as an actor, but every movement wasdirected by his genius. He did not escape suspicion, but committed noovert acts by which he could be punished. He and the celebratedDuchess de Longueville, a woman who had as great a talent for intrigueas himself, were the life and soul of the Fronde--a civil war whichended only in the reëstablishment of the monarchy on a firmerfoundation. As the Fronde had been commenced by a troop of urchins, who, at the same time, amused themselves with slings, the wits of thecourt called the insurgents _frondeurs_, or slingers, insinuating thattheir force was trifling, and their aim mischief. 

[Sidenote: Prince of Condé. ]

Nevertheless, the Frondeurs kept France in a state of anarchy for sixyears, and they were headed by some of the most powerful nobles, andeven supported by the Parliament of Paris. The people, too, were onthe side of the rebels, since they were ground down by taxation, andhoped to gain a relief from their troubles. But the rebels took theside of the oppressed only for their private advantage, and theparliament itself lacked the perseverance and intrepidity necessary tosecure its liberty. The civil war of the Fronde, though headed bydiscontented nobles, and animated by the intrigues of a turbulentecclesiastic, was really the contest between the parliament and thearbitrary power of the government. And the insurrection would havebeen fearful and successful, had the people been firm or the noblesfaithful to the cause they defended. But the English Revolution, thenin progress, and in which a king had been executed, shocked the loversof constitutional liberty in France, and reacted then, even as theFrench Revolution afterwards reacted on the English mind. Moreover, the excesses which the people perpetrated at Paris, alarmed theparliament and the nobles who were allied with it, while it urged onthe ministers to desperate courses. The prince of Condé, whosevictories had given him an immortality, dallied with both parties, ashis interests served. Allied with the court, he could overpower theinsurgents; but allied with the insurgents, he could control thecourt. Sometimes he sided with the minister and sometimes with theinsurgents, but in neither case unless he exercised a power andenjoyed a remuneration dangerous in any government. Both parties werejealous of him, both feared him, both hated him, both insulted him, andboth courted him. At one time, he headed the royal troops to attackParis, which was generally in the hands of the people and ofparliament; and then, at another, he fought like a tiger to defendhimself in Paris against the royal troops. He had no sympathy witheither the parliament or the people, while he fought for them; and hevenerated the throne, while he rebelled against it. His name was Louisde Bourbon, and he was a prince of the blood. He contended against thecrown only to wrest from it the ancient power of the great nobles; andto gain this object, he thought to make the parliament and theParisian mob his tools. The parliament, sincerely devoted to liberty, thought to make the nobles its tools, and only leagued with them tosecure their services. The crafty Mazarin quietly beheld thesedissensions, and was sure of ultimate success, even though at one timebanished to Cologne. And, like a reed, he was ever ready to bend todifficulties he could not control. But he stooped to conquer. He atlast got the Prince of Condé, his brother the Prince of Conti, and theDuke of Longueville, in his power. When the Duke of Orleans heard ofit, he said, "He has taken a good haul in the net; he has taken alion, a fox, and a monkey. " But the princes escaped from the net, and, leagued with Turenne, Bouillon, La Rochefoucault, and other greatnobles reached Paris, and were received with acclamations of joy bythe misguided people. Then, again, they obtained the ascendant. Butthe ascendency was no sooner gained than the victors quarrelled withthemselves, and with the parliament, for whose cause they professed tocontend. It was in their power, when united, to have deprived thequeen regent of her authority, and to have established constitutionalliberty in France. But they would not unite. There was no spirit ofdisinterestedness, nor of patriotism, nor public virtue, without whichliberty is impossible, even though there were forces enough to batterdown Mount Atlas. Condé, the victor, suffered himself to be againbribed by the court. He would not persevere in his alliance witheither nobles or the parliament. He did not unite with the noblesbecause he felt that he was a prince. He did not continue with theparliament, because he had no sympathy with freedom. The cause of thenobles was lost for want of mutual confidence; that of the parliamentfor lack of the spirit of perseverance. The parliament, at length, grew weary of war and of popular commotions, and submitted to thecourt. All parties hated and distrusted each other, more than they didthe iron despotism of Mazarin. The power of insurgent nobles declined. De Retz, the arch intriguer, was driven from Paris. The Duchess deLongueville sought refuge in the vale of Port Royal; and, in theJansenist doctrines, sought that happiness which earthly grandeurcould not secure. Condé quitted Paris to join the Spanish armies. Therest of the rebellious nobles made humble submission. The people foundthey had nothing to gain from any dominant party, and resignedthemselves to another long period of political and social slavery. Themagistrates abandoned, in despair and disgust, their high claims topolitical rights, while the young king, on his bed of justice, decreedthat parliament should no more presume to discuss or meddle with stateaffairs. The submissive parliament registered, without a murmur, theedict which gave a finishing stroke to its liberties. The Fronde warwas a complete failure, because all parties usurped powers which didnot belong to them, and were jealous of the rights of each other. Thenobles wished to control the king, and the magistracy put itselfforward to represent the commons, when the states general alone wasthe ancient and true representative of the nation, and the body towhich it should have appealed. The Fronde rebellion was a failure, because it did not consult constitutional forms, because it formedunnatural alliances, and because it did not throw itself upon theforce of immortal principles, but sought to support itself by merephysical strength rather than by moral power, which alone is thesecret and the glory of all great internal changes. 

[Sidenote: Power of Mazarin. ]

The return of Cardinal Mazarin to power, as the minister ofLouis XIV. , was the era of his grandeur. His first care was to restorethe public finances; his second was to secure his personalaggrandizement. He obtained all the power which Richelieu had enjoyed, and reproved the king, and such a king as Louis XIV. , as he would aschoolboy. He enriched and elevated his relatives, married them intothe first families of France; and amassed a fortune of two hundredmillions of livres, the largest perhaps that any subject has securedin modern times. He even aspired to the popedom; but this greatest ofall human dignities, he was not permitted to obtain. A fatal maladyseized him, and the physicians told him he had not two months to live. Some days after, he was seen in his dressing-gown, among his pictures, of which he was extravagantly fond, and exclaimed, "Must I quit allthese? Look at that Correggio, this Venus of Titian, this incomparabledeluge of Carracci. Farewell, dear pictures, that I have loved sodearly, and that have cost me so much. "

[Sidenote: Death of Mazarin. ]

The minister lingered awhile, and amused his last hours with cards. Heexpired in 1661; and no minister after him was intrusted with suchgreat power. He died unlamented, even by his sovereign, whose thronehe had preserved, and whose fortune he had repaired. He had greattalents of conversation, was witty, artful, and polite. He completedthe work which Richelieu began; and, at his death, his master was themost absolute monarch that ever reigned in France. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Louis XIV. Et son Siècle. Miss Pardoe's History of Louis XIV. Voltaire's and James's Lives of Louis XIV. Memoirs of Cardinal Richelieu. Memoirs of Mazarin. Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier. Mémoires du Duc de Saint Simon. Life of Cardinal de Retz, in which the Fronde war is well traced. Memoir of the Duchess de Longueville. Lacretelle's History of France. Rankin's History of France. Sismondi's History of France. Crowe's History, in Lardner's Cyclopedia. Rowring's History of the Huguenots. Lord Mahon's Life of the Prince of Condé. The above works are the most accessible to the American student. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE REIGNS OF JAMES I. AND CHARLES I. 

While the Protestants in Germany were struggling for religiousliberty, and the Parliaments of France for political privileges, therewas a contest going on in England for the attainment of the same greatends. With the accession of James I. A new era commences in Englishhistory, marked by the growing importance of the House of Commons, andtheir struggles for civil and religious liberty. The Commons had notbeen entirely silent during the long reign of Elizabeth, but membersof them occasionally dared to assert those rights of which Englishmenare proud. The queen was particularly sensitive to any thing whichpertained to her prerogative, and generally sent to the Tower any manwho boldly expressed his opinion on subjects which she deemed that sheand her ministers alone had the right to discuss. These forbiddensubjects were those which pertained to the management of religion, toher particular courts, and to her succession to the crown. She nevermade an attack on what she conceived to be the constitution, but onlyzealously defended what she considered as her own rights. And she wasever sufficiently wise to yield a point to the commons, after she hadasserted her power, so that concession, on her part, had all theappearance of bestowing a favor. She never pushed matters toextremity, but gave way in good time. And in this policy she showedgreat wisdom; so that, in spite of all her crimes and caprices, sheever retained the affections of the English people. 

[Sidenote: Accession of James I. ]

The son of her rival Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, ascended the throne, (1603, ) under the title of _James I. _, and was the first of the Stuartkings. He had been king of Scotland under the title of _James VI. _, and had there many difficulties to contend with, chiefly inconsequence of the turbulence of the nobles, and the bigotry of thereformers. He was eager to take possession of his English inheritance, but was so poor that he could not begin his journey until Cecil senthim the money. He was crowned, with great ceremony, in WestminsterAbbey, on the 25th of June. 

The first acts of his reign were unpopular; and it was subsequentlydisgraced by a continual succession of political blunders. To detailthese, or to mention all the acts of this king, or the events of hisinglorious reign would fill a volume larger than this History. Moreover, from this period, modern history becomes very complicatedand voluminous, and all that can be attempted in this work is, anallusion to the principal events. 

[Sidenote: The Genius of the Reign of James. ]

The genius of this reign is the contest between _royal prerogative andpopular freedom_. The proceedings in parliament were characterized bya spirit of boldness and resistance never before manifested, while thespeeches and acts of the king were marked by an obstinate and stupidpertinacity to those privileges which absolute kings extorted fromtheir subjects in former ages of despotism and darkness. The boldnessof the Commons and the bigotry of the king led to incessantdisagreement and discontent; and, finally, under Charles I. , to openrupture, revolution, and strife. 

The progress of this insurrection and contest furnishes one of themost important and instructive chapters in the history of society andthe young student cannot make himself too familiar with details, ofwhich our limits forbid a description. 

The great Puritan contest here begins, destined not to be closed untilafter two revolutions, and nearly a century of anxiety, suffering, andstrife. Providence raised up, during the whole of the Stuart dynasty, great patriots and statesmen, who had an eye to perceive the trueinterests and rights of the people, and a heart and a hand to defendthem. No period and no nation have ever been more fertile in great menthan England was from the accession of James I. To the abdication ofJames II. , a period of eighty-five years. Shakspeare, Raleigh, Coke, Bacon, Cecil, Selden, Pym, Wentworth, Hollis, Leighton, Taylor, Baxter, Howe, Cromwell, Hampden, Blake, Vane, Milton, Clarendon, Burnet, Shaftesbury, are some of the luminaries which have shed alight down to our own times, and will continue to shine through allfuture ages. They were not all contemporaneous, but they all tookpart, more or less, on one side or the other, in the great contest ofthe seventeenth century. Whether statesmen, warriors, poets, ordivines, they alike made their age an epoch, and their little islandthe moral centre of the world. 

But we must first allude to some of the events of the reign ofJames I. , before the struggle between prerogative and libertyattracted the attention of Europe. 

[Sidenote: Conspiracy of Sir Walter Raleigh. ]

One of the first was the conspiracy against the king, in which LordCobham and Sir Walter Raleigh were engaged. We lament that so great afavorite with all readers as Sir Walter Raleigh, so universal agenius, a man so learned, accomplished, and brave, should have evenbeen suspected of a treasonable project, and without the excuse ofsome traitors, that they wished to deliver their country from tyranny. But there is no perfection in man. Sir Walter was restless andambitious, and had an eye mainly to his own advantage. His wit, gallantry, and chivalry were doubtless very pleasing qualities in acourtier, but are not the best qualities of a patriot. He wasdisappointed because he could not keep pace with Cecil in the favor ofhis sovereign, and because the king took away the monopolies he hadenjoyed. Hence, in conjunction with other disappointed politicians, hewas accused of an attempt to seize the king's person, to change theministry, and to place the Lady Arabella Stuart on the throne. AgainstRaleigh appeared no less a person than the great Coke, who prosecutedhim with such vehemence that Raleigh was found guilty, and condemnedto death. But the proofs of his guilt are not so clear as the evidenceof his ambition; and much must be attributed to party animosity. Though condemned, he was not executed; but lived to write many morebooks, and make many more voyages, to the great delight both of thecultivated and the adventurous. That there was a plot to seize theking is clear, and the conspirators were detected and executed. Raleigh was suspected of this, and perhaps was privy to it; but theproofs of his crime were not apparent, except to the judges, and tothe attorney-general, Coke, who compared the different plots toSamson's foxes, joined in the tails, though their heads wereseparated. 

[Sidenote: Gunpowder Plot. ]

[Sidenote: Persecution of the Catholics. ]

The most memorable event at this time in the domestic history of thekingdom was the Gunpowder Plot, planned by Catesby and otherdisappointed and desperate Catholics for the murder of the king, andthe destruction of both houses of parliament. Knowing the sympathiesof James for their religion, the Catholics had expected toleration, atleast. But when persecution continued against them, some reckless andunprincipled men united in a design to blow up the parliament. Percy, a relation of the Earl of Northumberland, was concerned in the plot, and many of the other conspirators were men of good families andfortunes, but were implacable bigots. They hired a cellar, under theparliament house, which had been used for coals; and there theydeposited thirty-one barrels of gunpowder, waiting several months fora favorable time to perpetrate one of the most horrid crimes everprojected. It was resolved that Guy Fawkes, one of the number, shouldset fire to the train. They were all ready, and the 5th of November, 1605, was at hand, the day to which parliament was prorogued; butPercy was anxious to save _his_ kinsman from the impending ruin, SirEverard Digby wished to warn some of _his_ friends, and Tresham wasresolved to give _his_ brother-in-law, Lord Mounteagle, a caution. Itseems that this peer received a letter so peculiar, that he carried itto Cecil, who showed it to the king, and the king detected orsuspected a plot. The result was, that the cellar was explored by thelord chamberlain, and Guy Fawkes himself was found, with all thematerials for striking a light, near the vault in which the coal andthe gunpowder were deposited. He was seized, interrogated, tortured, and imprisoned; but the wretch would not reveal the names of hisassociates, although he gloried in the crime he was about to commit, and alleged, as his excuse, that violent diseases required desperateremedies, the maxim of the Jesuits. But most of the conspiratorsrevealed their guilt by flight. They might have escaped, had they fledfrom the kingdom; but they hastened only into the country to collecttheir friends, and head an insurrection, which, of course, was easilysuppressed. The leaders in this plot were captured and executed, andrichly deserved their fate, although it was clear that they wereinfatuated. But in all crime there is infatuation. It was suspectedthat the Jesuits were at the bottom of the conspiracy; and the wholeCatholic population suffered reproach from the blindness and folly ofa few bigots, from whom no sect or party ever yet has been free. Butthere is no evidence that any of the Catholic clergy were even privyto the intended crime, which was known only to the absolute plotters. Some Jesuits were indeed suspected, arrested, tortured, and executed;but no evidence of guilt was brought against them sufficient toconvict them. But their acquittal was impossible in such a state ofnational alarm and horror. Nothing ever made a more lasting andprofound impression on the English mind than this intended crime; andit strengthened the prejudices against the Catholics even more thanthe persecutions under Queen Mary. Had the crime been consummated, itwould only have proved a blunder. It would have shocked and irritatedthe nation beyond all self-control; and it is probable that the wholeCatholic population would have been assassinated, or hunted out, asvictims for the scaffold, in every corner of England. It proved, however, a great misfortune, and the severest blow Catholicism everreceived in England. Thus God overrules all human wickedness. Therewas one person who suffered, in consequence of the excited suspicionsof the nation, whose fate we cannot but compassionate; and this personwas the Earl of Northumberland, who was sentenced to pay a fine ofthirty thousand pounds, to be deprived of all his offices, and to beimprisoned in the Tower for life, and simply because he was the headof the Catholic party, and a promoter of toleration. Indeed, penalstatutes against the Catholics were fearfully multiplied. No Catholicwas permitted to appear at court, or live in London, or within tenmiles of it, or remove, on any occasion, more than five miles from hishome, without especial license. No Catholic recusant was permitted topractise surgery, physic, or law; to act as judge, clerk, or officerof any court or corporation; or perform the office of administrator, executor, or guardian. Every Catholic who refused to have his childbaptized by a Protestant, was obliged to pay, for each omission, onehundred pounds. Every person keeping a Catholic servant, was compelledto pay ten pounds a month to government. Moreover, every recusant wasoutlawed; his house might be broken open; his books and furnituredestroyed; and his horses and arms taken from him. Such was the severetreatment with which the Catholics, even those who were good citizens, were treated by our fathers in England; and this persecution wasdefended by some of the greatest jurists, divines, and statesmen whichEngland has produced. And yet some maintain that there has been noprogress in society, except in material civilization!

[Sidenote: Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset. ]

One of the peculiarities of the reign of James was, the ascendencywhich favorites obtained over him, so often the mark of a weak andvacillating mind. Henry VIII. And Elizabeth had their favorites; butthey were ministers of the royal will. Moreover, they, like Wolsey, Cromwell, Burleigh, and Essex, were great men, and worthy of the trustreposed in them. But James, with all his kingcraft and statecraft, with all his ostentation and boasts of knowledge and of sagacity, reposed his confidence in such a man as Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. It is true he also had great men to serve him; Cecil was hissecretary, Bacon was his chancellor, and Coke was his chief justice. But Carr and Villiers rose above them all in dignity and honor, andwere the companions and confidential agents of their royal master. 

[Sidenote: Greatness and Fall of Somerset. ]

Robert Carr was a Scottish gentleman, poor and cunning, who had earlybeen taught that personal beauty, gay dress, and lively manners, wouldmake his fortune at court. He first attracted the attention of theking at a tilting match, at which he was the esquire to Lord Dingwall. In presenting his lord's shield to the king, his horse fell and threwhim at James's feet. His leg was broken, but his fortune was made. James, struck with his beauty and youth, and moved by the accident, sent his own surgeon to him, visited him himself, and even taught himLatin, seeing that the scholastic part of his education had beenneglected. Indeed, James would have made a much better schoolmasterthan king; and his pedantry and conceit were beyond all bounds, sothat Bacon styled him, either in irony or sycophancy, "the Solomon ofthe age. " Carr now became the pet of the learned monarch. He wasknighted, rich presents were bestowed on him, all bowed down to him asthey would have done to a royal mistress; and Cecil and Suffolk viedwith each other in their attempts to secure the favor of his friends. He gradually eclipsed every great noble at court, was created ViscountRochester, received the Order of the Garter, and, when Cecil, thenEarl of Salisbury, died, received the post of the Earl of Suffolk aslord chamberlain, he taking Cecil's place as treasurer. Rochester, ineffect, became prime minister, as Cecil had been. He was then createdEarl of Somerset, in order that he might marry the Countess of Essex, the most beautiful and fascinating woman at the English court. She wasdaughter of the Earl of Suffolk, and granddaughter of the old Duke ofNorfolk, executed in 1572, and, consequently, belonged to the firstfamily in the realm. She was married to Essex at the age of thirteen, but treated him with contempt and coldness, being already enamored ofthe handsome favorite. That she might marry Carr she obtained adivorce from her husband on the most frivolous grounds, and throughthe favor of the king, who would do any thing for the man he delightedto honor. She succeeded in obtaining her end, and caused the ruin ofall who opposed her wishes. But she proved a beautiful demon, afascinating fury, as might be expected from such an unprincipledwoman, although ennobled by "the blood of all the Howards. " Her reignlasted, however, only during the ascendency of her husband. For atime, "glorious days were succeeded by as glorious nights, when masksand dancings had a continual motion, and when banquetings rapt up thespirit of the sacred king, and kept it from descending to earthlythings. " But whatever royal favor stamps, royal favor, like fashion, leaves. Carr was supplanted by Villiers, and his doom was sealed. Forthe murder of his old friend Sir Thomas Overbury, who died in theTower, as it was then supposed by poison, he and his countess weretried, found guilty, and disgraced. But he was not executed, and, after a few years' imprisonment, retired to the country, with hislady, to reproach and hate each other. Their only child, the Lady AnnaCarr, a woman of great honor and virtue, married the first duke ofBedford, and was the mother of Lord Russell who died on the scaffold, a martyr to liberty, in the reign of Charles II. The origin of thenoble families of England is curious. Some few are descended fromsuccessful Norman chieftains, who came over with William theConqueror, and whose merit was in their sword. Others are thedescendants of those who, as courtiers, statesmen, or warriors, obtained great position, power, and wealth, during former reigns. Manyowe their greatness to the fact that they are the offspring of theillegitimate children of kings, or the descendants of the ignobleminions of kings. Some few are enrolled in the peerage on account oftheir great wealth; and a still smaller number for the eminentservices they have rendered their country like Wellington, Brougham, or Ellenborough. A vast majority can boast only the merit or thesuccessful baseness of their ancestors. But all of them areinterlinked by marriages, and therefore share together the glory orthe shame of their progenitors, so far as glory and shame can betransmitted from father to son, independently of all individual virtueor vice. 

[Sidenote: Duke of Buckingham. ]

[Sidenote: Lord Bacon. ]

Carr was succeeded in the royal favor by Villiers, and he, morefortunate, ever retained the ascendency over the mind and heart ofJames, as well as of his son Charles I. George Villiers owed hisfortune, not to his birth or talents, but to his fine clothes, hisParisian manners, smooth face, tall figure, and bland smiles. Hebecame cup-bearer, then knight, then gentleman of the privy council, then earl, then marquis, and finally duke of Buckingham, lord highadmiral, warden of the Cinque Ports, high steward of Westminster, constable of Windsor Castle, and chief justice in eyre of the parksand forests. "The doting and gloating king" had taught Somerset Latin;he attempted to teach Buckingham divinity, and called him ever by thename of "Steenie. " And never was there such a mixture of finery, effeminacy, insolence, and sycophancy in any royal minion before orsince. Beau Brummell never equalled him in dress, Wolsey inmagnificence, Mazarin in peculation, Walpole in corruption, Jeffriesin insolence, or Norfolk in pride. He was the constant companion ofthe king, to whose vices he pandered, and through him the royal favorflowed. But no rewards, or favors, or greatness satisfied him; not somuch because he was ambitious, as because, like a spoiled child, hedid not appreciate the magnitude of the gifts which were bestowed onhim. Nor did he ever know his place; but made love to the queen ofFrance herself, when he was sent on an embassy. He trampled on theconstitution, subverted the laws, ground down the people by taxes, andtaught the king to disregard the affections of his subjects, and toview them as his slaves. But such a triumph of iniquity could not beendured; and Buckingham was finally assassinated, after he had gainedan elevation higher than any English subject ever before attained, except Wolsey, and without the exercise of any qualities whichentitled him to a higher position than a master of ceremonies at afashionable ball. It is easy to conceive that such a minion shouldarrive at power under such a monarch as James; but how can weunderstand that such a man as Lord Bacon, the chancellor, thephilosopher, the statesman, the man of learning, genius, and wisdom, should have bowed down to the dust, in vile subserviency, to thisinfamous favorite of the king. Surely, what lessons of the frailty ofhuman nature does the reign of James teach us! The most melancholyinstance of all the singular cases of human inconsistency, at thistime, is the conduct of the great Bacon himself, who reached thezenith of his power during this reign. It is not the receiving of abribe, while exercising the highest judicial authority in the land, onwhich alone his shame rests, but his insolent conduct to hisinferiors, his acquiescence in wrong, his base and unmanly sycophancy, his ingratitude to his friends and patrons, his intense selfishnessand unscrupulous ambition while climbing to power, and, above all, hiswillingness to be the tool of a despot who trampled on the rights andliberties which God had given him to guard; and this in an age oflight, of awakened intelligence, when even his crabbed rival Coke wasseeking to explode the abuses of the Dark Ages. But "the differencebetween the soaring angel and the creeping snake, was but a type ofthe difference between Bacon the philosopher and Bacon theattorney-general, Bacon seeking for truth and Bacon seeking for theSeals. " As the author of the Novum Organum, as the pioneer of modernscience, as the calm and patient investigator of nature's laws, as theminer and sapper of the old false systems of philosophy which enslavedthe human mind, as the writer for future generations, he has received, as he has deserved, all the glory which admiring and grateful millionscan bestow, of his own nation, and of all nations. No name in Britishannals is more illustrious than his, and none which is shaded withmore lasting shame. Pope alone would have given him an immortality asthe "wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind. " The only defence for thepolitical baseness of Bacon--and this is insufficient--is, that allwere base around him. The years when he was in power are among thedarkest and most disgraceful in English history. 

[Sidenote: Trial and Execution of Raleigh. ]

Allusion has been made to the reign of favorites; but this was but asmall part of the evils of the times. Every thing abroad and at homewas mismanaged. Patents of monopolies were multiplied; the mostgrievous exactions were made; indefensible executions were ordered;the laws were perverted; justice was sold; and an ignominious war wasclosed by a still more ignominious peace. The execution of Raleigh wasa disgrace to the king, the court, and the nation, because the mannerof it was so cowardly and cruel. He had been convicted, in the earlypart of the reign, of treason, and committed to the Tower. There helanguished twelve years, amusing himself by writing a universalhistory, and in seeking the elixir of life; for, in the mysteries ofchemistry, and in the mazes of historical lore, as in the intrigues ofcourts, and dangers of camps, he was equally at home. 

He was released from his prison in order to take command of anadventurous expedition to Guiana in quest of gold. In a former voyagehe had visited the banks of the Oronoco in quest of the city of Manoa, where precious stones and gold existed in exhaustless treasures. ThatEl Dorado he could not find; but now, in prison, he proposed toSecretary Winwood an expedition to secure what he had before sought invain. The king wavered a while between his cupidity and fear; for, while he longed for gold, as the traveller does for water on thedesert of Sahara, he was afraid of giving offence to the Spanishambassador. But his cupidity was the stronger feeling, and Raleigh wassent with fourteen ships to the coasts of South America. Theexpedition was in every respect unfortunate to Raleigh and to theking. The gallant commander lost his private fortune and a promisingson, the Spaniards attacked his armament, his troops mutinied anddeserted, and he returned to England, with a sullied fame, to meet adisappointed sovereign and implacable enemies. In such times, failureis tantamount to crime, and Raleigh was tried for offences he nevercommitted. The most glaring injustice, harshness, and sophistry wereresorted to, even by Bacon; but still Raleigh triumphantly defendedhimself. But no innocence or eloquence could save him; and he wasexecuted on the sentence which had been pronounced against him fortreason fifteen years before. To such meanness and cowardice did hisenemies resort to rid the world of a universal genius, whose crime--ifcrime he ever committed--had long been consigned to oblivion. 

[Sidenote: Encroachments of James. ]

But we cannot longer dwell on the lives of eminent individuals duringthe reign of James. However interesting may be the details of theirfortunes, their history dwindles into insignificance when comparedwith the great public injuries which an infatuated monarch inflicted. Not cruel in his temper, not stained by personal crimes, quite learnedin Greek and Latin, but weak and ignorant of his duties as a king, hewas inclined to trespass on the rights of his subjects. As has beenalready remarked, the genius of his reign was the contest betweenprerogative and liberty. The Commons did not acquiesce in hismeasures, or yield to his wishes, as they did during the reign ofElizabeth. He had a notion that the duty of a king was to command, andthat of the subject was to obey, in all things; that kings ruled bydivine right, and were raised by the Almighty above all law. But suchnotions were not approved by a parliament which swarmed with Puritans, and who were not careful to conceal their views from the king. Theyinsisted on their privileges as tenaciously as the king insisted onhis prerogative, and often came into collision with him. And theyinstituted an inquiry into monopolies, and attacked the monstrousabuses of purveyance, and the incidents of feudal tenure, by which, among other things, the king became guardian to wards, and receivedthe profits of their estates during their minority. These feudalclaims, by which the king, in part, received his revenue, were everyyear becoming less valuable to the crown, and more offensive to thepeople. The king, at length, was willing to compound, and make abargain with the Commons, by which he was to receive two hundredthousand pounds a year, instead of the privileges of wardship, andother feudal rights. But his necessities required additional grants, which the Commons were unwilling to bestow; and the king then resortedto the sale of monopolies and even peerages, sent the more turbulentof the Commons to prison, and frequently dissolved parliament. He wasresolved to tax the people if supplies were not granted him, while theCommons maintained that no taxation could be allowed without theirconsent. Moreover, the Commons refused to grant such supplies as theking fancied he needed, unless certain grievances were redressed, among which was the High Commission Court, an arbitrary tribunal, which fined and imprisoned without appeal. But James, though pressedfor money, stood firm to his notions of prerogative, and supplied hismost urgent necessities by illegal means. People were dragged to theStar Chamber, on all kinds of accusations, that they might besentenced to pay enormous fines; new privileges and monopolies wereinvented, and new dignities created. Baronets, who are hereditaryknights, were instituted, and baronetcies were sold for one thousandpounds each. 

[Sidenote: Quarrel between James and Parliament. ]

But the monopolies which the king granted, in order to raise money, did not inflame the Commons so much as the projected marriage betweenthe prince of Wales and the infanta of Spain. James flattered himselfthat this Spanish match, to arrange which he had sent Buckingham tothe court of Madrid, would procure the restitution of the Palatinateto the elector, who had been driven from his throne. But the Commonsthought differently. They, as well as the people generally, wereindignant in view of the inactivity of the government in not sendingaid to the distressed Protestants of Germany; and the loss of thePalatinate was regarded as a national calamity. They saw no good whichwould accrue from an alliance with the enemies and persecutors ofthese Protestants; but, on the other hand, much evil. As theconstitutional guardians, therefore, of the public welfare andliberty, they framed a remonstrance to the king, representing theovergrown power of Austria as dangerous to the liberties of Europe, and entreated his majesty to take up arms against Spain, which wasallied with Austria, and by whose wealth Austrian armies weresupported. 

James was inflamed with indignation at this remonstrance, whichmilitated against all his maxims of government; and he forthwith wrotea letter to the speaker of the House of Commons, commanding him toadmonish the members "not to presume to meddle with matters of statewhich were beyond their capacity, and especially not to touch on hisson's marriage. " The Commons, not dismayed, and conscious of strength, sent up a new remonstrance in which they affirmed that they _were_entitled to interpose with their counsel in all matters of state, andthat entire freedom of speech was their ancient and undoubted right, transmitted from their ancestors. The king, in reply, told theCommons, that "their remonstrance was more like a denunciation of war, than an address of dutiful subjects, and that their pretension toinquire into state affairs was a plenipotence to which none of theirancestors, even during the weakest reigns, had ever dared to aspire. "He farther insinuated that their privileges were derived from royalfavor. On this, the Commons framed another protest, --that theliberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament arethe ancient and undoubted birthright of Englishmen, and that everymember has the right of freedom of speech. This protest they enteredupon their journals, upon which James lost all temper, ordered theclerk to bring him the journals, erased the protestation with his ownhand, in presence of the judges and the council, and then dissolvedthe parliament. 

Nothing else of note occurred in this reign, except the prosecution ofthe Spanish match, which was so odious to the nation that Buckingham, to preserve his popularity, broke off the negotiations, and by asystem of treachery and duplicity as hateful as were his originalefforts to promote the match. War with Spain was the result of theinsult offered to the infanta and the court. An alliance was now madewith France, and Prince Charles married Henrietta Maria, daughter ofHenry IV. The Commons then granted abundant supplies for war, torecover the Palatinate; and liberty of conscience was granted by themonarch, on the demands of Richelieu, to the Catholics--so long and, perseveringly oppressed. 

[Sidenote: Death of James I. ]

Shortly after, (March 27, 1625, ) King James died at Theobalds, hisfavorite palace, from a disease produced by anxiety, gluttony, andsweet wines, after a reign in England of twenty-two years; and hisson, Charles I. , before the breath was out of his body, was proclaimedking in his stead. 

The course pursued by James I. Was adopted by his son; and, as theirreigns were memorable for the same struggle, we shall consider themtogether until revolution gave the victory to the advocates offreedom. 

Charles I. Was twenty-five years of age when he began his reign. In amoral and social point of view he was a more respectable man than hisfather, but had the same absurd notions of the royal prerogative, thesame contempt of the people, the same dislike of constitutionalliberty, and the same resolution of maintaining the absolute power ofthe crown, at any cost. He was moreover, perplexed by the sameembarrassments, was involved in debt, had great necessities, and wasdependent on the House of Commons for aid to prosecute his wars andsupport the dignity of the crown. But he did not consider the changingcircumstances and spirit of the age, and the hostile and turbulentnature of his people. He increased, rather than diminished, the odiousmonopolies which irritated the nation during the reign of his father;he clung to all the old feudal privileges; he retained the detestableand frivolous Buckingham as his chief minister; and, when Buckinghamwas assassinated, he chose others even more tyrannical andunscrupulous; he insisted on taxing the people without their consent, threw contempt on parliament, and drove the nation to rebellion. Inall his political acts he was infatuated, after making every allowancefor the imperfections of human nature. A wiser man would have seen therising storm, and might possibly have averted it. But Charles neverdreamed of it, until it burst in all its fury on his devoted head, andconsigned him to the martyr's grave. We pity his fate, but lamentstill more his blindness. And so great was this blindness, that italmost seems as if Providence had marked him out to be a victim on thealtar of human progress. 

With the reign of Charles commences unquestionably the most excitingperiod of English history, and a period to which historians have givenmore attention than to any other great historical era, the FrenchRevolution alone excepted. The attempt to describe the leading eventsin this exciting age and reign would be, in this connection, absurd;and yet some notice of them cannot be avoided. 

[Sidenote: The Struggle of Classes. ]

For more than ten centuries, great struggles have been going on insociety between the dominant orders and sects. The victories gained bythe oppressed millions, over their different masters, constitute whatis called the Progress of Society. Defenders of the people haveoccasionally arisen from orders to which they did not belong. When, then, any great order defended the cause of the people against thetyranny and selfishness of another order, then the people haveadvanced a step in civil and social freedom. 

When Feudalism weighed fearfully upon the people, "the clergy sought, on their behalf, a little reason, justice, and humanity, and the poorman had no other asylum than the churches, no other protectors thanthe priests; and, as the priests offered food to the moral nature ofman, they acquired a great ascendency, and the preponderance passedfrom the nobles to the clergy. " By the aid of the church, royalty alsorose above feudalism, and aided the popular cause. 

The church, having gained the ascendency, sought then to enslave thekings of the earth. But royalty, borrowing help from humiliated noblesand from the people, became the dominant power in Europe. 

[Sidenote: Rise of Popular Power. ]

In these struggles between nobles and the clergy, and between theclergy and kings, the people had acquired political importance. Theyhad obtained a knowledge of their rights and of their strength; andthey were determined to maintain them. They liked not the tyranny ofeither nobles, priests, or kings; but they bent all their energies tosuppress the power of the latter, since the two former had beenalready humiliated. 

The struggle of the people against royalty is preëminently the geniusof the English Revolution. It is to be doubted whether any king couldhave resisted the storm of popular fury which hurled Charles from histhrone. But no king could have managed worse than he, no king could bemore unfortunately and unpropitiously placed; and his own imprudenceand folly hastened the catastrophe. 

The House of Commons, which had acquired great strength, spirit, andpopularity during the reign of James, fully perceived the difficultiesand necessities of Charles, but made no adequate or generous effort torelieve him from them. Some of the more turbulent rejoiced in them. They knew that kings, like other men, were selfish, and that it wasnot natural for people to part with their privileges and power withouta struggle, even though this power was injurious to the interests ofsociety. In the Middle Ages, barons, bishops, and popes had foughtdesperately in the struggle of classes; and it was only from theirnecessities that either kings or people had obtained what theydemanded. King Charles, no more than Pope Boniface VIII. , wouldsurrender, as a boon to man, without compulsion, his supposedomnipotence. 

[Sidenote: Quarrel between the King and the Commons. ]

The king ascended his throne burdened by the debts of his father, andby an expensive war, which the Commons incited, but would not pay for. They granted him, to meet his difficulties and maintain his honor, thepaltry sum of one hundred and forty thousand pounds, and the duties oftonnage and poundage, not for life, as was customary, but for a year. Nothing could be more provoking to a young king. Of course, the moneywas soon spent, and the king wanted more, and had a right to expectmore. But, if the Commons granted what the king required, he would bemade independent of them, and he would rule tyrannically, as the kingsof England did before him. So they resolved not to grant necessarysupplies to carry on the government, unless the king would part withthe prerogatives of an absolute prince, and those old feudalprivileges which were an abomination in the eyes of the people. Charles was not the man to make such a bargain. Few kings, in his age, would have seen its necessity. But necessity there was. Civil war wasinevitable, without a compromise, provided both parties were resolvedon maintaining their ground. But Charles fancied that the Commonscould be browbeaten and intimidated into submission; and, moreover, incase he was brought into collision with his subjects, he fancied thathe was stronger than they, and could put down the spirit ofresistance. In both of these suppositions he was wrong. The Commonswere firm, and were stronger than he was, because they had thesympathy of the people. They believed conscientiously, especially thePuritans, that he was wrong; that God gave him no divine right toenslave them, and that they were entitled, by the eternal principlesof justice, and by the spirit of the constitution, to civil andreligious liberty, in the highest sense of that term. They believedthat their rights were inalienable and absolute; that, among them, they could not be taxed without their own consent; and that theirconstitutional guardians, the Commons, should be unrestricted indebate. These notions of the people were _ideas_. On ideas allgovernments rest. No throne could stand a day unless the people feltthey owed it their allegiance. When the main support of the throne ofCharles was withdrawn, the support of popular ideas, and this supportgiven to the House of Commons, at issue with the sovereign, what couldhe do? What could Louis XVI. Do one hundred and fifty yearsafterwards? What could Louis Philippe do in our times? A king, withoutthe loyalty of the people, is a phantom, a mockery, and a delusion, unless he have physical force to sustain him; and even then armieswill rebel, if they feel they are not bound to obey, and if it is notfor their interest to obey. 

Now Charles had neither _loyalty_ nor _force_ to hold him on histhrone. The agitations of an age of unprecedented boldness inspeculations destroyed the former; the House of Commons would notgrant supplies to secure the latter. And they would not grantsupplies, because they loved themselves and the cause of the peoplebetter than they loved their king. In short, it was only by hisconcessions that they would supply his necessities. He would not makethe concessions, and the contest soon ended in an appeal to arms. 

[Sidenote: The Counsellors of Charles. ]

But Charles was not without friends, and some of his advisers were menof sagacity and talent. It is true they did not fully appreciate theweakness of the king, or the strength of his enemies; but they saw hisdistress, and tried to remove it. They, very naturally in such an age, recommended violent courses--to grant new monopolies, to extort fines, to exercise all his feudal privileges, to pawn the crown jewels, even, in order to raise money; for money, at all events, he must have. Theyadvised him to arrest turbulent and incendiary members of the Commons, to prorogue and dissolve parliaments, to raise forced loans, to imposenew duties, to shut up ports, to levy fresh taxes, and to raise armiesfriendly to his cause. In short, they recommended unconstitutionalmeasures--measures which both they and the king knew to beunconstitutional, but which they justified on the ground of necessity. And the king, in his perplexity, did what his ministers advised. Butevery person who was sent to the Tower, every new tax, every sentenceof the Star Chamber, every seizure of property, every arbitrarycommand, every violation of the liberties of the people, raised up newenemies to the king, and inflamed the people with new discontents. 

[Sidenote: Death of Buckingham--Petition of Right. ]

At first the Commons felt that they could obtain what they wanted--aredress of grievances, if the king's favorite adviser and ministerwere removed. Besides, they all hated Buckingham--peers, commons, andpeople, --and all sought his downfall. He had no friends among thepeople, as Essex had in the time of Elizabeth. His extravagance, pomp, and insolence disgusted all orders; and his reign seemed to be aninsult to the nation. Even the people regarded him as an upstart, setting himself above the old nobility, and enriching himself by royaldomains, worth two hundred eighty-four thousand three hundred andninety-five pounds. So the Commons violently attacked hisadministration, and impeached him. But he was shielded by the king, and even appointed to command an expedition to relieve La Rochelle, then besieged by Richelieu. But he was stabbed by a religious fanatic, by the name of Felton, as he was about to embark at Portsmouth. Hisbody was removed to London, and he was buried with great state inWestminster Abbey, much lamented by the king, who lost his earlyfriend, one of the worst ministers, but not the worst man, which thatage despised, (1628. )

Meanwhile the indignant Commons persevered with their work. Theypassed what is called the "Petition of Right, "--a string ofresolutions which asserted that no freeman ought to be detained inprison, without being brought to trial, and that no taxes could belawfully levied, without consent of the Commons--the two great pillarsof the English constitution, yet truths involved in politicaldifficulty, especially in cases of rebellion. The personal liberty ofthe subject is a great point indeed; and the act of _habeas corpus_, passed in later times, is a great step in popular freedom; but, ifnever to be suspended, no government could guard against conspiracy inrevolutionary times. 

The Petition of Right, however, obtained the king's assent, thoughunwillingly, grudgingly, and insincerely given; and the Commons, gratified for once, voted to the king supplies. 

But Charles had no notion of keeping his word, and soon resorted tounconstitutional measures, as before. But he felt the need of ablecounsellors. His "dear Steenie" was dead, and he knew not in whom torepose confidence. 

[Sidenote: Earl of Strafford. ]

The demon of despotism raised up an agent in the person of ThomasWentworth, a man of wealth, talents, energy, and indomitable courage;a man who had, in the early part of his career, defended the cause ofliberty; who had even suffered imprisonment sooner than contribute toan unlawful loan, and in whom the hopes of the liberal party wereplaced. But he was bribed. His patriotism was not equal to hisambition. Seduced by a peerage, and by the love of power, he went overto the side of the king, and defended his arbitrary rule as zealouslyas he had before advocated the cause of constitutional liberty. He wascreated Viscount Wentworth, and afterwards earl of Strafford--the mostprominent man of the royalist party, and the greatest traitor to thecause of liberty which England had ever known. His picture, as paintedby Vandyke, and hung up in the princely hall of his descendant, EarlFitzwilliam, is a faithful portrait of what history represents him--acold, dark, repulsive, unscrupulous tyrant, with an eye capable ofreading the secrets of the soul, a brow lowering with care andthought, and a lip compressed with determination, and twisted intocontempt of mankind. If Wentworth did not love his countrymen, heloved to rule over them: and he gained his end, and continued theprime minister of absolutism until an insulted nation rose in theirmight, and placed his head upon the block. 

[Sidenote: John Hampden. ]

Under the rule of this minister, whom every one feared, the Puritansevery where fled, preferring the deserts of America, with freedom, tothe fair lands of England, with liberty trodden under foot. The reignsof both James and Charles are memorable for the resistance and despairof this intrepid and religious sect, in which were enrolled some ofthe finest minds and most intelligent patriots of the country. Pym, Cromwell, Hazelrig, and even Hampden, are said to have actuallyembarked; but Providence detained them in England, they having amission of blood to perform there. In another chapter, the Puritans, their struggles, and principles, will be more fully presented; and wetherefore, in this connection, abstain from further notice. It may, however, be remarked, that they were the most inflexible enemies ofthe king, and were determined to give him and his minister no restuntil all their ends were gained. They hated Archbishop Laud even moreintensely than they hated Wentworth; and Laud, if possible, was agreater foe to religious and civil liberty. Strafford and Laud aregenerally coupled together in the description of the abuses ofarbitrary power. The churchman, however, was honest and sincere, onlyhis views were narrow and his temper irritable. His vices were thoseof the bigot--such as disgraced St. Dominic or Torquemada, but faultswhich he deemed excellencies. He was an enthusiast in high churchismand toryism; and his zeal in defence of royal prerogative and thedivine rights of bishops has won for him the panegyrics of hisfriends, as well as the curses of his enemies. For Strafford, too, there is admiration, but only for his talents, his courage, hisstrength--the qualities which one might see in Milton's Satan, or inCarlyle's picture gallery of heroes. 

While the king and his minister were raising forced loans andcontributions, sending members of the House of Commons to the Tower, fining, imprisoning, and mutilating the Puritans, a new impositioncalled out the energies of a great patriot and a great man, JohnHampden--a fit antagonist of the haughty Wentworth. This new exactionwas a tax called _ship money_. 

It was devised by Chief Justice Finch and Attorney-General Noy, twosubordinate, but unscrupulous tools of despotism, and designed toextort money from the inland counties, as well as from the cities, forfurnishing ships--a demand that Elizabeth did not make, in all herpower, even when threatened by the Spanish Armada. Clarendon evenadmits that this tax was not for the support of the navy, "but for aspring and magazine which should have no bottom, and for aneverlasting supply on all occasions. " And this the nation completelyunderstood, and resolved desperately to resist. 

Hampden, though a wealthy man, refused to pay the share assessed onhim, which was only twenty shillings, deeming it an illegal tax. Hewas proceeded against by the crown lawyers. Hampden appealed to adecision of the judges in regard to the legality of the tax, and theking permitted the question to be settled by the laws. The triallasted thirteen days, but ended in the condemnation of Hampden, whohad shown great moderation, as well as courage, and had won the favorof the people. It was shortly after this that Hampden, as somehistorians assert, resolved to leave England with his cousin OliverCromwell. But the king prevented the ships, in which they and otheremigrants had embarked, from sailing. Hampden was reserved for newtrials and new labors. 

[Sidenote: Insurrection in Scotland. ]

About a month after Hampden's condemnation, an insurrection broke outin Scotland, which hastened the crisis of revolution. It was producedby the attempt of Archbishop Laud to impose the English liturgy on theScottish nation, and supplant Presbyterianism by Episcopacy. Therevolutions in Scotland, from the time of Knox, had been popular; notproduced by great men, but by the diffusion of great ideas. The peoplebelieved in the spiritual independence of their church, and not in thesupremacy of a king. The instant, therefore, that the Episcopalworship was introduced, by authority, in the cathedral of Edinburgh, there was an insurrection, which rapidly spread through all parts ofthe country. An immense multitude came to Edinburgh to protest againstthe innovation, and crowded all the houses, streets, and halls of thecity. The king ordered the petitioners home, without answering theircomplaints. They obeyed the injunction, but soon returned in greaternumbers. An organization of resistance was made, and a provisionalgovernment appointed. All classes joined the insurgents, who, menaced, but united, at last bound themselves, by a solemn league and covenant, not to separate until their rights and liberties were secured. A vastmajority of all the population of Scotland--gentlemen, clergy, citizens, and laborers, men, women, and children--assembled in thechurch, and swore fealty to the covenant. Force, of course, wasnecessary to reduce the rebels, and civil war commenced in Scotland. But war increased the necessities of the king, and he was compelled tomake peace with the insurgent army. 

Eleven years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the lastparliament, during which the king had attempted to rule without one, and had resorted to all the expedients that the ingenuity of the crownlawyers could suggest, in order to extort money. Imposts fallen intodesuetude, monopolies abandoned by Elizabeth, royal forests extendedbeyond the limits they had in feudal times, fines past all endurance, confiscations without end, imprisonments, tortures, andexecutions, --all marked these eleven years. The sum for fines alone, in this period, amounted to more than two hundred thousand pounds. Theforest of Rockingham was enlarged from six to sixty miles in circuit, and the earl of Salisbury was fined twenty thousand pounds forencroaching upon it. Individuals and companies had monopolies of salt, soap, coals, iron, wine, leather, starch, feathers, tobacco, beer, distilled liquors, herrings, butter, potash, linen cloth, rags, hops, gunpowder, and divers other articles, which, of course, deranged thewhole trade of the country. Prynne was fined ten thousand pounds, andhad his ears cut off, and his nose slit, for writing an offensivebook; and his sufferings were not greater than what divers othersexperienced for vindicating the cause of truth and liberty. 

At last, the king's necessities compelled him to summon anotherparliament. He had exhausted every expedient to raise money. His armyclamored for pay; and he was overburdened with debts. 

[Sidenote: Long Parliament. ]

On the 13th of April, 1640, the new parliament met. It knew itsstrength, and was determined now, more than ever, to exercise it. Itimmediately took the power into its own hands, and from remonstrancesand petitions it proceeded to actual hostilities; from thedenunciation of injustice and illegality, it proceeded to trample onthe constitution itself. It is true that the members were irritatedand threatened, and some of their number had been seized andimprisoned. It is true that the king continued his courses, and wasresolved on enforcing his measures by violence. The struggle becameone of desperation on both sides--a struggle for ascendency--and notfor rights. 

One of the first acts of the House of Commons was the impeachment ofStrafford. He had been just summoned from Ireland, where, as lordlieutenant, he had exercised almost regal power and regal audacity; hehad been summoned by his perplexed and desponding master to assist himby his counsels. Reluctantly he obeyed, foreseeing the storm. He hadscarcely arrived in London when the intrepid Pym accused him of hightreason. The Lords accepted the accusation, and the imperious ministerwas committed to the Tower. 

The impeachment of Laud soon followed; but he was too sincere in histyranny to understand why he should be committed. Nor was he feared, as Strafford was, against whom the vengeance of the parliament wasespecially directed. A secret committee, invested with immense powers, was commissioned to scrutinize his whole life, and his destruction wasresolved upon. On the 22d of March his trial began, and lastedseventeen days, during which time, unaided, he defended himselfagainst thirteen accusers, with consummate ability. Indeed, he hadstudied his charges and despised his adversaries. Under ordinarycircumstances, he would have been acquitted, for there was notsufficient evidence to convict him of high treason; but anunscrupulous and infuriated body of men were thirsting for his blood, and it was proposed to convict him by bill of attainder; that is, byact of parliament, on its own paramount authority, with or without thelaw. The bill passed, in spite of justice, in spite of the eloquenceof the attainted earl. He was condemned, and remanded to the Tower. 

Had the king been strong he would have saved his minister; had he beenmagnanimous, he would have stood by him to the last. But he hadneither the power to save him, nor the will to make adequatesacrifices. He feebly interposed, but finally yielded, and gave hisconsent to the execution of the main agent of all his aggressions onthe constitution he had sworn to maintain. Strafford deserved hisfate, although the manner of his execution was not according to law. 

[Sidenote: Rebellion of Ireland. ]

A few months after the execution of Strafford, an event occurred whichproved exceedingly unfortunate to the royal cause; and this was therebellion of Ireland, and the massacre of the Protestant population, caused, primarily, by the oppressive government of England, and theharsh and severe measures of the late lord lieutenant. In the courseof a few weeks, the English and Scottish colonies seemed almostuprooted; one of the most frightful butcheries was committed that everoccurred. The Protestants exaggerated their loss; but it is probablethat at least fifty thousand were massacred. The local government ofDublin was paralyzed. The English nation was filled with deadly andimplacable hostility, not against the Irish merely, but against theCatholics every where. It was supposed that there was a generalconspiracy among the Catholics to destroy the whole nation; and it waswhispered that the queen herself had aided the revolted Irish. Themost vigorous measures were adopted to raise money and troops forIreland. The Commons took occasion of the general spirit of discontentand insurrection to prepare a grand remonstrance on the evils of thekingdom, which were traced to a "coalition of Papists, Arminianbishops and clergymen, and evil courtiers and counsellors. " TheCommons recited all the evils of the last sixteen years, and declaredthe necessity of taking away the root of them, which was the arbitrarypower of the sovereign. The king, in reply, told the Commons thattheir remonstrance was unparliamentary; that he could not understandwhat they meant by a wicked party; that bishops were entitled to theirvotes in parliament; and that, as to the removal of evil counsellors, they must name whom they were. The remonstrance was printed andcirculated by the Commons, which was of more effect than an army couldhave been. 

Thus were affairs rapidly reaching a crisis, when the attempt to seizefive of the most refractory and able members of parliament consummatedit. The members were Hollis, Hazelrig, Pym, Hampden, and Strode; andthey were accused of high treason. This movement of the king was oneof the greatest blunders and one of the most unconstitutional acts heever committed. The Commons refused to surrender their members; andthen the king went down to the house, with an armed force, to seizethem. But Pym and others got intelligence of the design of Charles, and had time to withdraw before he arrived. "The baffled tyrantreturned to Whitehall with his company of bravoes, " while the city ofLondon sheltered Hampden and his friends. The shops were shut, thestreets were filled with crowds, and the greatest excitementprevailed. The friends of Charles, who were inclined to constitutionalmeasures, were filled with shame. It was now feared that the kingwould not respect his word or the constitution, and, with all hispromises, was still bent on tyrannical courses. All classes, butbigoted royalists, now felt that something must be done promptly, orthat their liberties would be subverted. 

Then it was, and not till then, that the Commons openly defied him, while the king remained in his palace, humbled, dismayed, andbewildered, "feeling, " says Clarendon, "the trouble and agony whichusually attend generous minds upon their having committed errors;" or, as Macaulay says, "the despicable repentance which attends thebungling villain, who, having attempted to commit a crime, finds thathe has only committed a folly. "

[Sidenote: Flight of the King from London. ]

In a few days, the king fled from Whitehall, which he was neverdestined to see again till he was led through it to the scaffold. Hewent into the country to raise forces to control the parliament, andthe parliament made vigorous measures to put itself and the kingdom ina state of resistance. On the 23d of April, the king, with threehundred horse, advanced to Hull, and were refused admission by thegovernor. This was tantamount to a declaration of war. It was soconsidered. Thirty-two Lords, and sixty members of the Commonsdeparted for York to join the king. The parliament decreed an army, and civil war began. 

Before this can be traced we must consider the Puritans, which isnecessary in order fully to appreciate the Revolution. The reign ofCharles I. Was now virtually ended, and that of the Parliament andCromwell had begun. 

 * * * * *

[Sidenote: Rise of the Puritans. ]

Dissensions among the Protestants themselves did not occur until thereign of Elizabeth, and were first caused by difficulties about aclerical dress, which again led to the advocacy of simpler forms ofworship, stricter rules of life, more definite forms of faith, andmore democratic principles of government, both ecclesiastical andcivil. The first promoters of these opinions were the foreign divineswho came from Geneva, at the invitation of Cranmer, of whom PeterMartyr, Martin Bucer, John à Lasco, were the most distinguished. SomeEnglishmen, also, who had been travelling on the continent, broughtwith them the doctrines of Calvin. Among these was Hooper, who, onbeing nominated to the bishopric of Gloucester, refused to submit tothe appointed form of consecration and admission. He objected to whathe called the _Aaronical_ habits--the square cap, tippet, andsurplice, worn by bishops. But dissent became more marked anddetermined when the exiles returned to England, on the accession ofElizabeth, and who were for advancing the reformation according totheir own standard. The queen and her advisers, generally, werecontent with King Edward's liturgy; but the majority of the exilesdesired the simpler services of Geneva. The new bishops, most of whomhad been their companions abroad, endeavored to soften them for thepresent, declaring that they would use all their influence at court tosecure them indulgence. The queen herself connived at non-conformity, until her government was established, but then firmly declared thatshe had fixed her standard, and insisted on her subjects conforming toit. The bishops, seeing this, changed their conduct, explained awaytheir promises, and became severe towards their dissenting brethren. 

The standard of the queen was the Thirty-Nine Articles. She admittedthat the Scriptures were the sole rule of faith, but declared thatindividuals must interpret Scripture as expounded in the articles andformularies of the English church, in violation of the great principleof Protestantism, which even the Puritans themselves did not fullyrecognize--the right and the duty of every individual to interpretScripture himself, whether his interpretation interfered with theEstablished Church or not. 

[Sidenote: Original Difficulties and Differences. ]

The first dissenters did not claim this right, but only urged thatcertain points, about which they felt scruples, should be left asmatters indifferent. On all essential points, they, as well as thestrictest conformists, believed in the necessity of a uniformity ofpublic worship, and of using the sword of the magistrate in defence oftheir doctrines. The standard of conformity, according to the bishops, was the queen's supremacy and the laws of the land; according to thePuritans, the decrees of provincial and national synods. 

At first, many of the Puritans overcame their scruples so far as tocomply with the required oath and accept livings in the Establishment. But they indulged in many irregularities, which, during the first yearof the reign of Elizabeth, were winked at by the authorities. "Someperformed, " says an old author, "divine service in the chancel, othersin the body of the church; some in a seat made in the church; some ina pulpit, with their faces to the people; some keeping precisely tothe order of the book; some intermix psalms in metre; some say with asurplice, and others without one. The table stands in the body of thechurch in some places, in others it stands in the chancel; in someplaces the table stands altarwise, distant from the wall a yard, inothers in the middle of the chancel, north and south. Some administerthe communion with surplice and cap, some with a surplice alone, others with none; some with chalice, others with a communion cup, others with a common cup; some with unleavened bread, and some withleavened; some receive kneeling, others standing, others sitting; somebaptize in a font, some in a basin; some sign with the sign of thecross, other sign not; some minister with a surplice, others without;some with a square cap, others with a round cap; some with a buttoncap, and some with a hat, some in scholar's clothes, some in commonclothes. "

These differences in public worship, which, by many, were consideredas indifferent matters, and by others were unduly magnified, seem tohave constituted the chief peculiarity of the early Puritans. Inregard to the queen's supremacy, the union of church and state, thenecessity of supporting religion by law, and articles of theologicalbelief, there was no disagreement. Most of the non-conformists weremen of learning and piety, and among the ornaments of the church. 

The metropolitan bishop, at this time, was Parker, a great sticklerfor the forms of the church, and very intolerant in all his opinions. He and others of the bishops had been appointed as commissioners toinvestigate the causes of dissent, and to suspend all who refused toconform to the rubric of the church. Hence arose the famous Court ofthe Ecclesiastical Commission, so much abused during the reigns ofJames and Charles. 

[Sidenote: Persecution during the Reign of Elizabeth. ]

Under the direction of Parker, great numbers were suspended from theirlivings for non-conformity, and sent to wander in a state ofdestitution. Among these were some of the most learned men in thechurch. They had no means of defence or livelihood, and resorted tothe press in order to vindicate their opinions. For this they wereeven more harshly dealt with; an order was issued from the StarChamber, that no person should print a book against the queen'sinjunctions, upon the penalty of fines and imprisonment; and authoritywas given to church-wardens to search all suspected places where booksmight be concealed. Great multitudes suffered in consequence of thesetyrannical laws. 

But the non-conformists were further molested. They were forbidden toassemble together to read the Scriptures and pray, but were requiredto attend regularly the churches of the Establishment, on penalty ofheavy fines for neglect. 

At length, worried, disgusted, and irritated, they resolved uponsetting up the Genevan service, and upon withdrawing entirely from theChurch of England. The separation, once made, (1566, ) became wider andwider, and the Puritans soon after opposed the claims of bishops as asuperior order of the clergy. They were opposed to the temporaldignities annexed to the episcopal office to the titles and office ofarchdeacons, deans, and chapters; to the jurisdiction of spiritualcourts; to the promiscuous access of all persons to the communion; tothe liturgy; to the prohibition, in the public service of prayer, bythe clergyman himself; to the use of godfathers and godmothers; to thecustom of confirmation; to the cathedral worship and organs; topluralities and non-residency; to the observance of Lent and of theholy days; and to the appointment of ministers by the crown, bishops, or lay patrons, instead of election by the people. 

The schism was now complete, and had grown out of such smalldifferences as refusing to bow at the name of Jesus, and to use thecross in baptism. 

In our times, the Puritans would have been permitted to worship God intheir own way, but they were not thus allowed in the time ofElizabeth. Religious toleration was not then understood or practised;and it was the fault of the age, since the Puritans themselves, whenthey obtained the power, persecuted with great severity the Quakersand the Catholics. But, during the whole reign of Elizabeth, especially the life of Archbishop Parker, they were in a minority, andsuffered--as minorities ever have suffered--all the miseries whichunreasonable majorities could inflict. 

[Sidenote: Archbishops Grindal and Whitgift. ]

Archbishop Grindal, who succeeded Parker in 1575, recommended mildermeasures to the queen; but she had no charity for those who denied thesupremacy of her royal conscience. 

Grindal was succeeded, in 1583, by Dr. Whitgift, the antagonist of thelearned Dr. Cartwright, and he proved a ruler of the church accordingto her majesty's mind. He commenced a most violent crusade against thenon-conformists, and was so harsh, cruel, and unreasonable, thatCecil--Lord Burleigh--was obliged to remonstrate, being much moreenlightened than the prelate. "I have read over, " said he, "yourtwenty-four articles, and I find them so curiously penned, that Ithink that the Spanish Inquisition used not so many questions toentrap the priests. " Nevertheless fines, imprisonment, and the gibbetcontinued to do their work in the vain attempt to put down opinions, till within four or five years of the queen's death when there was acessation of persecution. 

[Sidenote: Persecution under James. ]

[Sidenote: Puritans in Exile. ]

But the Scottish Solomon, as James was called, renewed the severitywhich Elizabeth found it wise to remit. Hitherto, the Puritans hadbeen chiefly Presbyterians; but now the Independents arose, whocarried their views still further, even to wildness and radicalism. They were stricter Calvinists, and inclined to republican views ofcivil government. Consequently, they were still more odious than werethe Presbyterians to an arbitrary government. They were now persecutedfor their doctrines of faith, as well as for their forms of worship. The Church of England retained the thirty-nine articles; but many ofher leading clergy sympathized with the views of Arminius, and amongthem was the primate himself. So strictly were Arminian doctrinescherished, that no person under a dean was permitted to discourse onpredestination, election, reprobation, efficacy, or universality ofGod's grace. And the king himself would hear no doctrines preached, except those he had condemned at the synod of Dort. But this act wasaimed against the Puritans, who, of all parties, were fond ofpreaching on what was called "the Five Points of Calvinism. " But theypaid dearly for their independence. James absolutely detested them, regarded them as a sect insufferable in a well-governed commonwealth, and punished them with the greatest severity. Their theologicaldoctrines, their notions of church government, and, above all, theirspirit of democratic liberty, were odious and repulsive. ArchbishopBancroft, who succeeded Whitgift in 1604, went beyond all hispredecessors in bigotry, but had not their commanding intellects. Hismeasures were so injudicious, so vexatious, so annoying, so severe, and so cruel, that the Puritans became, if possible, still moreestranged. With the popular discontents, and with the progress ofpersecution, their numbers increased, both in Scotland and England. With the increase of Puritanism was also a corresponding change in theChurch of England, since ceremony and forms increased almost to arevival of Catholicism. And this reaction towards Rome, favored by thecourt, incensed still more the Puritans, and led to languageunnecessarily violent and abusive on their side. Their controversialtracts were pervaded with a spirit of bitterness and treason which, inthe opinion of James, fully justified the imprisonments, fines, andmutilations which his minister inflicted. The Puritans, in despair, fled to Holland, and from thence to New England, to establish, amidits barren hills and desolate forests, that worship which alone theythought would be acceptable to God. Persecution elevated them, andnone can deny that they were characterized by moral virtues and aspirit of liberty which no people ever before or since exhibited. Almost their only fault was intolerance respecting the opinions andpleasures of many good people who did not join their ranks. 

James's death did not remit their sufferings; but, by this time, theyhad so multiplied that they became a party too formidable to becrushed. The High Commission Court and the Star Chamber still filledthe prisons and pillories with victims; but every sentence of thesecourts fanned the flame of discontent, and hastened the catastrophewhich was rapidly approaching. The volcano, over whose fearful brinkthe royal family and the haughty hierarchy were standing, was nowsending forth those frightful noises which indicated approachingconvulsions. 

During the years that Charles dispensed with the parliaments, whenLaud was both minister and archbishop, the persecution reached itsheight, and also popular discontent. During this period, the greatestemigration was made to New England, and even Hampden and Cromwellcontemplated joining their brethren in America. Arianism and Poperyadvanced with Puritanism, and all parties prepared for the approachingcontest. The advocates of royal usurpation became more unreasonable, the friends of popular liberty became more violent. Those who had thepower, exercised it without reflection. The history of the times issimply this--despotism striving to put Puritanism and liberty beneathits feet, and Puritanism aiming to subvert the crown. 

But the greatest commotions were in Scotland, where the people weregenerally Presbyterians; and it was the zeal of Archbishop Laud insuppressing these, and attempting to change the religion of the land, which precipitated the ruin of Charles I. 

[Sidenote: Troubles in Scotland. ]

Ever since the time of Knox, Scotland had been the scene of violentreligious animosities. In that country, the reformation, from thefirst, had been a popular movement. It was so impetuous, and decidedunder the guidance of the uncompromising Knox, that even before thedethronement of Mary, it was complete. In the year 1592, through theinfluence of Andrew Melville, the Presbyterian government was fairlyestablished, and King James is said to have thus expressed himself: "Ipraise God that I was born in the time of the light of the gospel, andin such a place as to be king of the purest kirk in the world. " TheChurch of Scotland, however, had severe struggles from the period ofits institution, 1560, to the year 1584, when the papal influence wasfinally destroyed by the expulsion of the earl of Arran from thecouncils of the young king. Nor did these struggles end even there. James, perceiving that Episcopacy was much more consonant withmonarchy than Presbyterianism, attempted to remodel the Scottishchurch on the English basis, which attempt resulted in discontent andrebellion. James, however, succeeded in reducing to contempt thegeneral assemblies of the Presbyterian church, and in confirmingArchbishop Spotswood in the chief administration of ecclesiasticalaffairs, which, it must be confessed, were regulated with greatprudence and moderation. 

When Charles came to the throne, he complained of the laxity of theScotch primate, and sent him a set of rules by which he was toregulate his conduct. Charles also added new dignities to his see, andordained that he, as primate, should take precedence over all thetemporal lords, which irritated the proud Scotch nobility. He moreovercontemplated the recovery of tithes and church lands for the benefitof the Episcopal government, and the imposition of a liturgy on theScotch nation, a great majority of whom were Presbyterians. This wasthe darling scheme of Laud, who believed that there could scarcely besalvation out of his church, and which church he strove to make asmuch like the Catholic as possible, and yet maintain independence ofthe pope. But nothing was absolutely done towards changing thereligion of Scotland until Charles came down to Edinburgh (1633) to becrowned, when a liturgy was prepared for the Scotch nation, subjectedto the revision of Laud, but which was not submitted to or seen by, the General Assembly, or any convocation of ministers in Scotland. Nothing could be more ill timed or ill judged than this conflict withthe religious prejudices of a people zealously attached to their ownforms of worship. The clergy united with the aristocracy, and bothwith the people, in denouncing the conduct of the king and hisministers as tyrannical and unjust. The canons, especially, which Laudhad prepared, were, in the eyes of the Scotch, puerile andsuperstitious; they could not conceive why a Protestant prelate shouldmake so much account of the position of the font or of the communiontable, turned into an altar. Indeed, his liturgy was not much otherthan an English translation of the Roman Missal, and excited thedetestation of all classes. Yet it was resolved to introduce it intothe churches, and the day was fixed for its introduction, which wasEaster Sunday, 1637. But such a ferment was produced, that theexperiment was put off to Sunday, 23d of July. On that day, thearchbishops and bishops, lords of session, and magistrates were allpresent, by command, in the Church of St. Giles. But no sooner had thedean opened the service book, and begun to read out of it, than thepeople, who had assembled in great crowds, began to fill the churchwith uproar. The bishop of Edinburgh, who was to preach, stepped intothe pulpit, and attempted to appease the tumultuous people. But thisincreased the tumult, when an old woman, seizing a stool, hurled it atthe bishop's head. Sticks, stones, and dirt followed the stool, withloud cries of "Down with the priest of Baal!" "A pape, a pape!""Antichrist!" "Pull him down!" This was the beginning of theinsurrection, which spread from city to village, until all Scotlandwas in arms, and Episcopacy, as an established religion, wassubverted. In February, 1638, the covenant was drawn up in Edinburgh, and was subscribed to by all classes, in all parts of Scotland; and, in November, the General Assembly met in Glasgow, the first that hadbeen called for twenty years, and Presbyterianism was reëstablished inthe kingdom, if not legally, yet in reality. 

From the day on which the Convocation opened, until the conquest ofthe country by Cromwell, the Kirk reigned supreme, there being nopower in the government, or in the country, able or disposed to resistor question its authority. This was the golden age of Presbyterianism, when the clergy enjoyed autocratic power --a sort of Druidicalascendency over the minds and consciences of the people, in affairstemporal as well as spiritual. 

[Sidenote: Peculiarities of Puritanism in England. ]

Puritanism did not pervade the English, as it did the Scotch mind, although it soon obtained an ascendency. Most of the great politicalchieftains who controlled the House of Commons, and who clamored forthe death of Strafford and Laud, were Puritans. But they were not allPresbyterians. In England, after the flight of the king fromWhitehall, the Independents attracted notice, and eventually seizedthe reins of government. Cromwell was an Independent. 

The difference between these two sects was chiefly in their viewsabout government, civil and ecclesiastical. Both Presbyterians andIndependents were rigid Calvinists, practised a severe morality, wereopposed to gay amusements, disliked organs and ceremonies, strictlyobserved the Sabbath, and attached great importance to the closeobservance of the Mosaic ritual. The Presbyterians were not behind theEpiscopalians in hatred of sects and a free press. They had theirmodel of worship, and declared it to be of divine origin. They lookedupon schism as the parent of licentiousness, insisted on entireuniformity, maintained the divine right of the clergy to themanagement of ecclesiastical affairs, and claimed the sword of themagistrate to punish schismatics and heretics. They believed in theunion of church and state, but would give the clergy the ascendencythey possessed in the Middle Ages. They did not desire the entireprostration of royal authority, but only aimed to limit and curtailit. 

The Independents wished a total disruption of church and state, anddisliked synods almost as much as they did bishops. They believed thatevery congregation was a distinct church, and had a right to elect thepastor. They preferred the greatest variety of sects to the ascendencyof any one, by means of the civil sword. They rejected all spiritualcourts, and claimed the right of each church to reject, punish, orreceive members. In politics, they wished a total overthrow of thegovernment--monarchy, aristocracy, and prelacy; and were averse to anypeace which did not secure complete toleration of opinions, and thecomplete subversion of the established order of things. 

[Sidenote: Conflicts among the Puritans. ]

Between the Presbyterians and the Independents, therefore, there couldnot be any lasting sympathy or alliance. They only united to crush thecommon foe; and, when Charles was beheaded, and Cromwell installed inpower, they turned their arms against each other. 

The great religious contest, after the rise of Cromwell, was notbetween the Puritans and the Episcopalians, but between the differentsects of Puritans themselves. At first, the Independents harmonizedwith the Presbyterians. Their theological and ethical opinions werethe same, and both cordially hated and despised the government of theStuarts. But when the Presbyterians obtained the ascendency, theIndependents were grieved and enraged to discover that religioustoleration was stigmatized as the parent of all heresy and schism. While in power, the Presbyterians shackled the press, and theirintolerance brought out John Milton's famous tract on the liberty ofunlicensed printing--one of the most masterly arguments which theadvocates of freedom have ever made. The idea that any dominantreligious sect should be incorporated with the political power, wasthe fatal error of Presbyterianism, and raised up enemies against it, after the royal power was suppressed. Cromwell was persuaded that thecause of religious liberty would be lost unless Presbyterianism, aswell as Episcopacy, was disconnected with the state; and hence onegreat reason of his assuming the dictatorship. And he granted a moreextended toleration than had before been known in England, although itwas not perfect. The Catholics and the Quakers were not partakers ofthe boon which he gave to his country; so hard is it for men to learnthe rights of others, when they have power in their own hands. 

[Sidenote: Character of the Puritans. ]

The Restoration was a victory over both the Independents and thegeneral swarm of sectaries which an age of unparalleled religiousexcitement had produced. It is difficult to conceive of the intensityof the passions which inflamed all parties of religious disputants. But if the Puritan contest developed fanatical zeal, it also broughtout the highest qualities of mind and heart which any age haswitnessed. With all the faults and weaknesses of the Puritans, therenever lived a better class of men, --men of more elevated piety, moreenlarged views, or greater disinterestedness, patriotism, and moralworth. They made sacrifices which our age can scarcely appreciate, andhad difficulties to contend with which were unparalleled in thehistory of reform. They made blunders which approximated to crimes, but they made them in their inexperience and zeal to promote the causeof religion and liberty. They were conscientious men--men who actedfrom the fear of God, and with a view to promote the highest welfareof future generations. They launched their bark boldly upon an unknownsea, and heroically endured its dangers and sufferings, with a view ofconferring immortal blessings on their children and country. Moreprudent men would have avoided the perils of an unknown navigation;but, by such men, a great experiment for humanity would not have beentried. It may have failed, but the world has learned immortal wisdomfrom the failure. But the Puritans were not mere adventurers ormartyrs. They have done something of lasting benefit to mankind, andthey have done this by the power of faith, and by loyalty to theirconsciences, perverted as they were in some respects. The Puritanswere not agreeable companions to the idle, luxurious, or frivolous;they were rigid ever, to austerity; their expressions degenerated intocant, and they were hostile to many innocent amusements. But thesewere peculiarities which furnished subjects of ridicule merely, anddid not disgrace or degrade them. These were a small offset to theirmoral wisdom, their firm endurance, their elevation of sentiment, their love of liberty, and their fear of God. Such are the men whomProvidence ordains to give impulse to society, and effect great anduseful reforms. 

 * * * * *

We now return to consider the changes which they attempted ingovernment. The civil war, of which Cromwell was the hero, now claimsour attention. 

The refusal of the governor of Hull to admit the king was virtuallythe declaration of war, for which both parties had vigorouslyprepared. 

The standard of the king was first raised in Nottingham, while thehead-quarters of the parliamentarians were in London. The first actionof any note was the battle of Edge Hill, (October 23, 1642, ) but wasundecisive. Indeed, both parties hesitated to plunge into desperatewar, at least until, by skirmishings and military manoeuvres, theywere better prepared for it. 

The forces of the belligerents, at this period, were nearly equal butthe parliamentarians had the ablest leaders. It was the misfortune ofthe king to have no man of commanding talents, as his counsellor, after the arrest of Strafford. Hyde, afterwards lord chancellor, andEarl of Clarendon, was the ablest of the royalist party. Falkland andCulpeper were also eminent men; but neither of them was the equal ofPym or Hampden. 

[Sidenote: John Hampden. ]

The latter was doubtless the ablest man in England at this time, andthe only one who could have saved it from the evils which afterwardsafflicted it. On him the hopes and affections of the nation centred. He was great in council and great in debate. He was the acknowledgedleader of the House of Commons. He was eloquent, honest, unwearied, sagacious, and prudent. "Never had a man inspired a nation withgreater confidence: the more moderate had faith in his wisdom; themore violent in his devoted patriotism; the more honest in hisuprightness; the more intriguing in his talents. " He spared neitherhis fortune nor his person, as soon as hostilities were inevitable. Hesubscribed two thousand pounds to the public cause, took a colonel'scommission, and raised a regiment of infantry, so well known duringthe war for its green uniform, and the celebrated motto of itsintrepid leader, --"_Vestigia nulla retrorsum_. " He possessed thetalents of a great statesman and a great general, and all the unitedqualities requisite for the crisis in which he appeared--"the valorand energy of Cromwell, the discernment and eloquence of Vane, thehumanity and moderation of Manchester, the stern integrity of Hale, the ardent public spirit of Sydney. Others could conquer; he alonecould reconcile. A heart as bold as his brought up the cuirassiers whoturned the tide of battle on Marston Moor. As skilful an eye as hiswatched the Scottish army descending from the heights over Dunbar. Butit was when, to the sullen tyranny of Laud and Charles, had succeededthe fierce conflict of sects and factions, ambitious of ascendency, and burning for revenge; it was when the vices and ignorance, whichthe old tyranny had generated, threatened the new freedom withdestruction, that England missed that sobriety, that self-command, that perfect soundness of judgment, that perfect rectitude ofintention, to which the history of revolutions furnishes no parallel, or furnishes a parallel in Washington alone. "[1]

 [Footnote 1: Macaulay. ]

[Sidenote: Oliver Cromwell. ]

This great man was removed by Providence from the scene of violenceand faction at an early period of the contest. He was mortally woundedin one of those skirmishes in which the detachments of both armies hadthus far engaged, and which made the campaigns of 1642-3 so undecided, so tedious, and so irritating--campaigns in which the generals of botharmies reaped no laurels, and which created the necessity for agreater genius than had thus far appeared. That genius was OliverCromwell. At the battle of Edge Hill he was only captain of a troop ofhorse, and at the death of his cousin Hampden, he was only colonel. Hewas indeed a member of the Long Parliament, as was Hampden, and hadsecured the attention of the members in spite of his slovenlyappearance and his incoherent, though earnest speeches. Under hisrough and clownish exterior, his talents were not perceived, except bytwo or three penetrating intellects; but they were shortly to appear, and to be developed, not in the House of Commons, but on the field ofbattle. The rise of Oliver Cromwell can scarcely be dated until thedeath of John Hampden; nor were the eyes of the nation fixed on him, as their deliverer, until some time after. The Earl of Essex was stillthe commander of the forces, while the Earl of Bedford, LordManchester, Lord Fairfax, Skippon, Sir William Waller, Leslie, andothers held high posts. Cromwell was still a subordinate; but geniusbreaks through all obstacles, and overleaps all boundaries. The timehad not yet come for the exercise of his great military talents. Theperiod of negotiation had not fully passed, and the king, at hishead-quarters at Oxford, "that seat of pure, unspotted loyalty, " stillhoped to amuse the parliament, gain time, and finally overwhelm itsforces. Prince Rupert--brave, ardent, reckless, unprincipled--stillravaged the country without reaping any permanent advantage. Theparliament was perplexed and the people were disappointed. On thewhole, the king's forces were in the ascendant, and were augmenting;while plots and insurrections were constantly revealing to theparliamentarians the dangers which threatened them. Had not an ableleader, at this crisis, appeared among the insurgents, or had an ablegeneral been given to Charles, it is probable that the king would havesecured his ends; for popular enthusiasm without the organizationwhich a master spirit alone can form, soon burns itself out. 

[Sidenote: The King at Oxford. ]

The state of the contending parties, from the battle of Edge Hill, fornearly two years, was very singular and very complicated. The kingremained at Oxford, distracted by opposing counsels, and perplexed byvarious difficulties. The head-quarters of his enemies, at London, were no less the seat of intrigues and party animosities. ThePresbyterians were the most powerful, and were nearly as distrustfulof the Independents as they were of the king, and feared a victoryover the king nearly as much as they did a defeat by him, and thedissensions among the various sects and leaders were no secret in theroyalist camp, and doubtless encouraged Charles in his endlessintrigues and dissimulations. But he was not equal to decisivemeasures, and without them, in revolutionary times, any party must beruined. While he was meditating and scheming, he heard the news of analliance between Scotland and the parliament, in which thePresbyterian interest was in the ascendency. This was the first greatblow he received since the commencement of the war, and the unitedforces of his enemies now resolved upon more vigorous measures. 

At the opening of the campaign, the parliament had five armies--thatof the Scots, of twenty-one thousand; that of Essex, ten thousand fivehundred; that of Waller, five thousand one hundred; that ofManchester, fourteen thousand; and that of Fairfax, five thousand fivehundred--in all, about fifty-six thousand men, of whom the committeeof the two kingdoms had the entire disposal. In May, Essex and Wallerinvested Oxford, while Fairfax, Manchester, and the Scots met underthe walls of York. Thus these two great royalist cities were attackedat once by all the forces of parliament. Charles, invested by astronger force, and being deprived of the assistance of the princes, Rupert and Maurice, his nephews, who were absent on their maraudingexpeditions, escaped from Oxford, and proceeded towards Exeter. In themean time, he ordered Prince Rupert to advance to the relief of York, which was defended by the marquis of Newcastle. The united royalistarmy now amounted to twenty-six thousand men, with a numerous and wellappointed cavalry; and this great force obliged the armies of theparliament to raise the siege of York. Had Rupert been contented withthis success, and intrenched himself in the strongest city of thenorth of England, he and Newcastle might have maintained their ground;but Rupert, against the advice of Newcastle, resolved on an engagementwith the parliamentary generals, who had retreated to Marston Moor, onthe banks of the Ouse, five miles from the city. 

The next day after the relief of York was fought the famous battle ofMarston Moor, (July 2, 1644, ) the bloodiest in the war, which resultedin the entire discomfiture of the royalist forces, and the ruin of theroyal interests at the north. York was captured in a few days. Rupertretreated to Lancashire to recruit his army, and Newcastle, disgustedwith Rupert, and with the turn affairs had taken, withdrew beyondseas. The Scots soon stormed the town of Newcastle, and the wholenorth of England fell into the hands of the victors. 

[Sidenote: Cromwell after the Battle. ]

[Sidenote: Enthusiasm of the Independents. ]

This great battle was decided by the ability of Cromwell, nowlieutenant-general in the army of the parliament. He had distinguishedhimself in all subordinate stations, in the field of battle, inraising forces, and in councils of war, for which he had been promotedto serve as second under the Earl of Manchester. But his remarkablemilitary genius was not apparent to the parliament until the battle ofMarston Moor, and on him the eyes of the nation now began to becentred. He was now forty-five years of age, in the vigor of hismanhood, burning with religious enthusiasm, and eager to deliver hiscountry from the tyranny of Charles I. , and of all kings. He was anIndependent and a radical, opposed to the Episcopalians, to thePresbyterians, to the Scots, to all moderate men, to all moderatemeasures, to all jurisdiction in matters of religion, and to allauthority in political affairs, which did not directly emanate fromthe people, who were called upon to regulate themselves by theirindividual reason. He was the idol of the Independent party, which nowbegan to gain the ascendency in that stormy crisis. For three years, the Presbyterians had been in the ascendant, but had not realized thehopes or expectations of the enthusiastic advocates of freedom. Byturns imperious and wavering, fanatical and moderate, they sought tocurtail and humble the king, not to ruin him; to depress Episcopacy, but to establish another religion by the sword of the magistrate. Their leaders were timid, insincere, and disunited; few among them haddefinite views respecting the future government of the realm: and theygradually lost the confidence of the nation. But the Independentsreposed fearlessly on the greatness and grandeur of their abstractprinciples, and pronounced, without a scruple, those potent wordswhich kindled a popular enthusiasm--equality of rights, the justdistribution of property, and the removal of all abuses. Above all, they were enthusiasts in religion, as well as in liberty, and devoutlyattached to the doctrines of Calvin. They abominated all pleasures andpursuits which diverted their minds from the contemplation of God, orthe reality of a future state. Cromwell himself lived in the ecstasyof religious excitement. His language was the language of the Bible, and its solemn truths were not dogmas, but convictions to his ardentmind. In the ardor of his zeal and the frenzy of his hopes, he fondlyfancied that the people of England were to rise in simultaneousconfederation, shake off all the old shackles of priests and kings, and be governed in all their actions, by the principles of the Bible. A sort of Jewish theocracy was to be restored on earth, and he was tobe the organ of the divine will, as was Joshua of old, when he led theIsraelites against the pagan inhabitants of the promised land. Up tothis time, no inconsistencies disgraced him. His prayers and hisexhortations were in accordance with his actions, and the mostscrutinizing malignity could attribute nothing to him but sincerityand ardor in the cause which he had so warmly espoused. As magistrate, as member of parliament, as farmer, or as general, he slighted noreligious duties, and was devoted to the apparent interests ofEngland. Such a man, so fervent, enthusiastic, honest, patriotic, andable, of course was pointed out as a future leader, especially whenhis great military talents were observed at Marston Moor. From thememorable 2d of July he became the most marked and influential man inEngland. Hampden had offered up his life as a martyr, and Pym, thegreat lawyer and statesman, had died from exhaustion. Essex had won novictory commensurate with the public expectations, and Waller lost hisarmy by desertions and indecisive measures. Both Essex and Manchester, with their large estates, their aristocratic connections, and theirPresbyterian sympathies, were afraid of treating the king too well. The battle of Newbury, which shortly after was gained by theparliamentarians, was without decisive results, in consequence of theindecision of Manchester. The parliament and the nation looked foranother leader, who would pursue his advantages, and adopt morevigorous measures. At this point, the Presbyterians would have madepeace with the king, who still continued his insincere negotiations;but it was too late. The Independents had gained the ascendency, andtheir voice was for war--no more dallying, no more treaties, no morehalf measures, but uncompromising war. It was plain that either theking or the Independents must be the absolute rulers of England. 

Then was passed (April 3, 1645) the famous Self-Denying Ordinance, bywhich all members of parliament were excluded from command in thearmy, an act designed to get rid of Essex and Manchester, and preparethe way for the elevation of Cromwell. Sir Thomas Fairfax wasappointed to the supreme command, and Cromwell was despatched into theinland counties to raise recruits. But it was soon obvious that thearmy could do nothing without him, although it was remodelled andreënforced; and even Fairfax and his officers petitioned parliamentthat Cromwell might be appointed lieutenant-general again, andcommander-in-chief of the horse; which request was granted, andCromwell rejoined the army, of which he was its hope and idol. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Naseby. ]

He joined it in time to win the most decisive battle of the war, thebattle of Naseby, June 14, 1645. The forces of both armies were nearlybalanced, and the royalists were commanded by the king in person, assisted by his ablest generals. But the rout of the king's forces wascomplete, his fortunes were prostrated, and he was driven, with theremnants of his army, from one part of the kingdom to the other, whilethe victorious parliamentarians were filled with exultation and joy. Cromwell, however, was modest and composed, and ascribed the victoryto the God of battles, whose servant, he fancied, he preëminently was. 

[Sidenote: Success of the Parliamentary Army. ]

The parliamentary army continued its successes. Montrose gained thebattle of Alford; Bridgewater surrendered to Fairfax; Glasgow andEdinburgh surrendered to Montrose; Prince Rupert was driven fromBristol, and, as the king thought, most disgracefully, whichmisfortune gave new joy to the parliament, and caused newthanksgivings from Cromwell, who gained the victory. From Bristol, thearmy turned southward, and encountered what royalist force there wasin that quarter, stormed Bridgewater, drove the royalist generals intoCornwall, took Winchester, battered down Basing House, rich inprovisions, ammunition, and silver plate, and completely prostratedall the hopes of the king in the south of England. Charles fled fromOxford, secretly, to join the Scottish army. 

By the 24th of June, 1646, all the garrisons of England and Wales, except those in the north, were in the hands of the parliament. InJuly, the parliament sent their final propositions to the king atNewcastle, which were extremely humiliating, and which he rejected. Negotiations were then entered into between the parliament and theScots, which were long protracted, but which finally ended in anagreement, by the Scots, to surrender the king to the parliament, forthe payment of their dues. They accordingly marched home with aninstalment of two hundred thousand pounds, and the king was given up, not to the Independents, but to the Commissioners of parliament, inwhich body the Presbyterian interest predominated. 

At this juncture, (January, 1647, ) Cromwell, rather than the king, wasin danger of losing his head. The Presbyterians, who did not wish toabolish royalty, but establish uniformity with their mode of worship, began to be extremely jealous of the Independents, who were bent onmore complete toleration of opinions, and who aimed at a totaloverthrow of many of the old institutions of the country. So soon asthe king was humbled, and in their hands, it was proposed to disbandthe army which had gloriously finished the war, and which was chieflycomposed of the Independents, and to create a new one on aPresbyterian model. The excuse was, that the contest was ended, while, indeed, the royalists were rather dispersed and humbled, than subdued. It was voted that, in the reduced army, no one should have, exceptFairfax, a higher rank than colonel, a measure aimed directly atCromwell, now both feared and distrusted by the Presbyterians. But thearmy refused to be disbanded without payment of its arrears, and, moreover, marched upon London, in spite of the vote of the parliamentthat it should not come within twenty-five miles. Several irritatingresolutions were passed by the parliament, which only had the effectof uniting the army more strongly together, in resistance againstparliament, as well as against the king. The Lords and Commons thenvoted that the king should be brought nearer London, and newnegotiations opened with him, which were prevented from being carriedinto effect by the seizure of the king at Holmby House, by CornetJoyce, with a strong party of horse belonging to Whalley's regiment, probably at the instigation of Cromwell and Ireton. His majesty wasnow in the hands of the army, his worst enemy, and, though treatedwith respect and deference, was really guarded closely, and watched bythe Independent generals. The same day, Cromwell left London in haste, and joined the army, knowing full well that he was in imminent dangerof arrest. He was cordially received, and forthwith the army resolvednot to disband until all the national grievances were redressed, thussetting itself up virtually against all the constituted authorities. Fairfax, Cromwell, Ireton, and Hammond, with other high officers, thenwaited on the king, and protested that they had nothing to do with theseizure of his person, and even invited him to return to Holmby House. But the king never liked the Presbyterians, and was willing to remainwith the army instead, especially since he was permitted to haveEpiscopal chaplains, and to see whomsoever he pleased. 

[Sidenote: Seizure of the King. ]

The generals of the army were not content with the seizure of hismajesty's person, but now caused eleven of the most obnoxious of thePresbyterian leaders of parliament to be accused, upon which they hidthemselves, while the army advanced towards London. The parliament, atfirst, made a show of resistance, but soon abandoned its course, andnow voted that the army should be treated with more respect and care. It was evident now to all persons where the seat of power rested. 

In the mean time, the king was removed from Newmarket to Kingston, from Hatfield to Woburn Abbey, and thence to Windsor Castle, which wasthe scene of new intrigues and negotiations on his part, and on thepart of parliament, and even on the part of Cromwell. This was thelast chance the king had. Had he cordially sided now with either thePresbyterians or the Independents, his subsequent misfortunes mighthave been averted. But he hated both parties, and trifled with both, and hoped to conquer both. He was unable to see the crisis of hisaffairs, or to adapt himself to it. He was incapable of fair dealingwith any party. His duplicity and dissimulation were fully made knownto Cromwell and Ireton by a letter of the king to his wife, which theyintercepted; and they made up their minds to more decided courses. Theking was more closely guarded; the army marched to the immediatevicinity of London; a committee of safety was named, and parliamentwas intimidated into the passing of a resolution, by which the city ofLondon and the Tower were intrusted to Fairfax and Cromwell. ThePresbyterian party was forever depressed, its leading members fled toFrance, and the army had every thing after its own way. Parliamentstill was ostensibly the supreme power in the land; but it wasentirely controlled by the Independent leaders and generals. 

[Sidenote: Triumph of the Independents. ]

The victorious Independents then made their celebrated proposals tothe king, as the Presbyterians had done before them; only theconditions which the former imposed were more liberal, and would havegranted to the king powers almost as great as are now exercised by thesovereign. But he would not accept them, and continued to play hisgame of kingcraft. 

Shortly after, the king contrived to escape from Windsor to the Isleof Wight, with the connivance of Cromwell. At Carisbrook Castle, wherehe quartered himself, he was more closely guarded than before. Seeingthis, he renewed his negotiations with the Scots, and attempted toescape. But escape was impossible. He was now in the hands of men whoaimed at his life. A strong party in the army, called the _Levellers_, openly advocated his execution, and the establishment of a republic;and parliament itself resolved to have no further treaty with him. Hisonly hope was now from the Scots, and they prepared to rescue him. 

Although the government of the country was now virtually in the handsof the Independents and of the army, the state of affairs wasextremely critical, and none other than Cromwell could have extricatedthe dominant party from the difficulties. In one quarter was animprisoned and intriguing king in league with the Scots, while theroyalist party was waiting for the first reverse to rise up again withnew strength in various parts of the land. Indeed, there were severalinsurrections, which required all the vigor of Cromwell to suppress. The city of London, which held the purse-strings, was at heartPresbyterian, and was extremely dissatisfied with the course affairswere taking. Then, again, there was a large, headstrong, levelling, mutineer party in the army, which clamored for violent courses, whichat that time would have ruined every thing. Finally, the Scotchparliament had voted to raise a force of forty thousand men, to invadeEngland and rescue the king. Cromwell, before he could settle thepeace of the country, must overcome all these difficulties. Who, buthe, could have triumphed over so many obstacles, and such apparentanarchy?

The first thing Cromwell did was to restore order in England; andtherefore he obtained leave to march against the rebels, who hadarisen in various parts of the country. Scarcely were these subdued, before he heard of the advance of the Scottish army, under the Duke ofHamilton. A second civil war now commenced, and all parties witnessedthe result with fearful anxiety. 

The army of Hamilton was not as large as he had hoped. Still he hadfifteen thousand men, and crossed the borders, while Cromwell wasbesieging Pembroke, in a distant part of the kingdom. But Pembrokesoon surrendered; and Cromwell advanced, by rapid marches, against theScottish army, more than twice as large as his own. The hostile forcesmet in Lancashire. Hamilton was successively defeated at Preston, Wigan, and Warrington. Hamilton was taken prisoner at Uttoxeter, August 25, 1648, and his invading army was completely annihilated. 

[Sidenote: Cromwell Invades Scotland. ]

Cromwell then resolved to invade, in his turn, Scotland itself, and, by a series of military actions, to give to the army a still greaterascendency. He was welcomed at Edinburgh by the Duke of Argyle, thehead of an opposing faction, and was styled "the Preserver ofScotland. " That country was indeed rent with most unhappy divisions, which Lieutenant-General Cromwell remedied in the best way he could;and then he rapidly retraced his steps, to compose greaterdifficulties at home. In his absence, the Presbyterians had rallied, and were again negotiating with the king on the Isle of Wight, whileCromwell was openly denounced in the House of Lords as ambitious, treacherous, and perfidious. Fairfax, his superior in command, butinferior in influence, was subduing the rebel royalists, who made afirm resistance at Colchester, and all the various parties weresending their remonstrances to parliament. 

Among these was a remarkable one from the regiments of Ireton, Ingoldsby, Fleetwood, Whalley, and Overton, which imputed toparliament the neglect of the affairs of the realm, called upon it toproclaim the sovereignty of the people and the election of a suprememagistrate, and threatened to take matters into their own hands. Thiswas in November, 1646; but, long before this, a republican governmentwas contemplated, although the leaders of the army had not joined inwith the hue and cry which the fanatical Levellers had made. 

[Sidenote: Seizure of the King a Second Time. ]

In the midst of the storm which the petition from the army had raised, the news arrived that the king had been seized a second time, and hadbeen carried a prisoner to Hurst Castle, on the coast opposite theisland, where he was closely confined by command of the army. Parliament was justly indignant, and the debate relative to peace wasresumed with redoubled earnestness. It is probable that, at thiscrisis, so irritated was parliament against the army, peace would havebeen made with the king, and the Independent party suppressed, had notmost decisive measures been taken by the army. A rupture between theparliament and the army was inevitable. But Cromwell and the armychiefs had resolved upon their courses. The mighty stream ofrevolution could no longer be checked. Twenty thousand men had vowedthat parliament should be purged. On the morning of December 6, Colonel Pride and Colonel Rich, with troops, surrounded the House ofCommons; and, as the members were going into the house, the mostobnoxious were seized and sent to prison, among whom were Primrose, who had lost his ears in his contest against the crown, Waller, Harley, Walker, and various other men, who had distinguishedthemselves as advocates of constitutional liberty. None now remainedin the House of Commons but some forty Independents, who were thetools of the army, and who voted to Cromwell their hearty thanks. "Theminority had now become a majority, "--which is not unusual inrevolutionary times, --and proceeded to the work, in good earnest, which he had long contemplated. 

[Sidenote: Trial of the King. ]

This was the trial of the king, whose apartments at Whitehall were nowoccupied by his victorious general, and whose treasures were nowlavished on his triumphant soldiers. 

On the 17th of December, 1648, in the middle of the night, thedrawbridge of the Castle of Hurst was lowered, and a troop of horseentered the yard. Two days after, the king was removed to Windsor. Onthe 23d, the Commons voted that he should be brought to trial. On the20th of January, Charles Stuart, King of England, was brought beforethe Court of High Commission, in Westminster Hall, and placed at thebar, to be tried by this self-constituted body for his life. In theindictment, he was charged with being a tyrant, traitor, and murderer. To such an indictment, and before such a body, the dignified butunfortunate successor of William the Conqueror demurred. He refused toacknowledge the jurisdiction of the court. But the solemn mockery ofthe trial proceeded nevertheless, and on the 27th, sentence of deathwas pronounced upon the prisoner--that prisoner the King of England, afew years before the absolute ruler of the state. On January 30, thebloody sentence was executed, and the soul of the murdered kingascended to that God who pardons those who put their trust in him, inspite of all their mistakes, errors, and delusions. The career ofCharles I. Is the most melancholy in English history. That he wastyrannical, that he disregarded the laws by which he swore to rule, that he was narrow, and bigoted, that he was deceitful in hispromises, that he was bent on overturning the liberties of England, and did not comprehend the wants and circumstances of his times, canscarcely be questioned. But that he was sincere in his religion, upright in his private life, of respectable talents, and goodintentions, must also be admitted. His execution, or rather hismartyrdom, made a deep and melancholy impression in all Christiancountries, and was the great blunder which the republicans made--ablunder which Hampden would have avoided. His death, however, removedfrom England a most dangerous intriguer, and, for a while, cementedthe power of Cromwell and his party, who now had undisputed ascendencyin the government of the realm. Charles's exactions and tyrannyprovoked the resistance of parliament, and the indignation of thepeople, then intensely excited in discussing the abstract principlesof civil and religious liberty. The resistance of parliament createdthe necessity of an army, and the indignation of the people filled itwith enthusiasts. The army flushed with success, forgot its relationsand duties, and usurped the government it had destroyed, and amilitary dictatorship, the almost inevitable result of revolution, though under the name of a republic, succeeded to the despotism of theStuart kings. This republic, therefore, next claims attention. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The standard Histories of England. Guizot's History of the English Revolution. Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. Forster's Life of the Statesmen of the Commonwealth. Neal's History of the Puritans. Macaulay's Essays. Lives of Bacon, Raleigh, Strafford, Laud, Hampden, and Cromwell. These works furnish all the common information. Few American students have the opportunity to investigate Thurlow's State Papers, or Rushworth, Whitelocke, Dugdale, or Mrs. Hutchinson. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL. 

[Sidenote: The Protectorate. ]

On the day of the king's execution, January 30, 1649, the House ofCommons--being but the shadow of a House of Commons, yet ostensiblythe supreme authority in England--passed an act prohibiting theproclamation of the Prince of Wales, or any other person, to be kingof England. On the 6th of February, the House of Peers was decreeduseless and dangerous, and was also dispensed with. On the next day, royalty was formally abolished. The supreme executive power was vestedin a council of state of forty members, the president of which wasBradshaw, the relative and friend of Milton, who employed his immortalgenius in advocating the new government. The army remained under thecommand of Fairfax and Cromwell; the navy was controlled by a board ofadmiralty, headed by Sir Harry Vane. A greater toleration of religionwas proclaimed than had ever been known before, much to the annoyanceof the Presbyterians, who were additionally vexed that the state wasseparated entirely from the church. 

The Independents pursued their victory with considerable moderation, and only the Duke of Hamilton, and Lords Holland and Capel, wereexecuted for treason, while a few others were shut up in the Tower. Never was so mighty a revolution accomplished with so littlebloodshed. But it required all the wisdom and vigor of Fairfax andCromwell to repress the ultra radical spirit which had crept intoseveral detachments of the army, and to baffle the movements which theScots were making in favor of Charles Stuart, who had already beenproclaimed king by the parliament of Scotland, and in Ireland by theMarquis of Ormond. 

[Sidenote: Storming of Drogheda and Wexford. ]

The insurrection in Ireland first required the notice of the newEnglish government. Cromwell accepted the conduct of the war, and theoffice of lord lieutenant. Dublin and Derry were the only places whichheld out for the parliament. All other parts of the country were in astate of insurrection. On the 15th of August, Cromwell and hisson-in-law, Ireton, landed near Dublin with an army of six thousandfoot and three thousand horse only; but it was an army of Ironsidesand Titans. In six months, the complete reconquest of the country waseffected. The policy of the conqueror was severe and questionable; butit was successful. In the hope of bringing the war to a speedytermination, Cromwell proceeded in such a way as to bring terror tohis name, and curses on his memory. Drogheda and Wexford were not onlytaken by storm, but nearly the whole garrison, of more than fivethousand men, were barbarously put to the sword. The Irish quailedbefore such a victor, and town after town hastened to make peace. Cromwell's excuse for his undeniable cruelties was, the necessity ofthe case, of which we may reasonably suppose him to be a judge. Scotland was in array, and English affairs, scarcely settled, demandedhis presence in London. An imperfect conquest, on the principles ofRousseau's philanthropy, did not suit the taste or the notions ofCromwell. If he had consumed a few more months than he actuallyemployed, either in treaty-making with a deceitful though oppressedpeople, or in battles on the principles of the military science thenin vogue, the cause of Independency would have been lost; and thatcause, associated with that of liberty, in the eyes of Cromwell, wasof more value than the whole Irish nation, or any other nation. Cromwell was a devotee to a cause. Principles, with him, were everything; men were nothing in comparison. To advance the principles forwhich he fought, he scrupled to use no means or instruments. In thishe may have erred. But this policy was the secret of his success. Wecannot justify his cruelties in war, because it is hard to justify thewar itself. But if we acknowledge its necessity, we should rememberthat such a master of war as was Cromwell knew his circumstancesbetter than we do or can know. To his immortal glory it can be saidthat he never inflicted cruelty when he deemed it unnecessary; that henever fought for the love of fighting; and that he stopped fightingwhen the cause for which he fought was won. And this is more than canbe said of most conquerors, even of those imbued with sentimentalhorror of bloodshed. Our world is full of cant. Cromwell's languagesometimes sounds like it, especially when he speaks of the "hand ofthe Lord" in "these mighty changes, " who "breaketh the enemies of hischurch in pieces. "

When the conquest of Ireland was completed, Cromwell hastened toLondon to receive the thanks of parliament and the acclamations of thepeople; and then he hurried to Scotland to do battle with the Scots, who had made a treaty with the king, and were resolved to establishPresbyterianism and royalty. Cromwell now superseded Fairfax, and wascreated captain-general of the forces of the commonwealth. Cromwellpassed the borders, reached Edinburgh without molestation, and thenadvanced on the Scotch army of twenty-seven thousand men, underLesley, at Dunbar, where was fought a most desperate battle, but whichCromwell gained with marvellous intrepidity and skill. Three thousandmen were killed, and ten thousand taken prisoners, and the hopes ofthe Scots blasted. The lord-general made a halt, and the whole armysang the one hundred and seventeenth psalm, and then advanced upon thecapital, which opened its gates. Glasgow followed the example; thewhole south of Scotland submitted; while the king fled towards theHighlands, but soon rallied, and even took the bold resolution ofmarching into England, while Cromwell was besieging Perth. Charlesreached Worcester before he was overtaken, established himself withsixteen thousand men, but was attacked by Cromwell, was defeated, andwith difficulty fled. He reached France, however, and quietly resteduntil he was brought back by General Monk. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Worcester. ]

With the battle of Worcester, September 3, 1651, which Cromwell calledhis "crowning mercy, " ended his military life. From that day to thetime when be became protector, the most noticeable point in hishistory is his conduct towards the parliament. And this conduct is themost objectionable part of his life and character; for in this heviolated the very principles he originally professed, and committedthe same usurpations which he condemned in Charles I. Here he was nottrue to himself or his cause. Here he laid himself open to the censureof all posterity; and although he had great excuses, and his coursehas many palliations, still it would seem a mockery of all moraldistinctions not to condemn in him what we would condemn in another, or what Cromwell himself condemned in the murdered king. It is true hedid not, at once, turn usurper, not until circumstances seemed towarrant the usurpation--the utter impossibility of governing England, except by exercising the rights and privileges of an absolute monarch. On the principles of expediency, he has been vindicated, and will bevindicated, so long as his cause is advocated by partisan historians, or expediency itself is advocated as a rule of life. 

[Sidenote: Policy of Cromwell. ]

After the battle of Worcester, Cromwell lost, in a measure, hisdemocratic sympathies, and naturally, in view of the great excesses ofthe party with which he had been identified. That he desired thepublic good we cannot reasonably doubt; and he adapted himself tothose circumstances which seemed to advance it, and which a spirit ofwild democratic license assuredly did not. So far as it contributed tooverturn the throne of the Stuarts, and the whole system of publicabuses, civil and ecclesiastical, Cromwell favored it. But no further. When it seemed subversive of law and order, the grand ends of allcivil governments, then he opposed it. And in this he showed that hewas much more conservative in his spirit than has often been supposed;and, in this conservatism he resembled Luther and other greatreformers, who were not unreflecting incendiaries, as is sometimesthought--men who destroy, but do not reconstruct. Luther, at heart, was a conservative, and never sought a change to which he was not ledby strong inward tempests--forced to make it by the voice of hisconscience, which he ever obeyed, and loyalty to which so remarkablycharacterized the early reformers, and no class of men more than thePuritans. Cromwell abhorred the government of Charles, because it wasnot a government which respected justice, and which set at defiancethe higher laws of God. It was not because Charles violated theconstitution, it was because he violated truth and equity, and thenation's good, that he opposed him. Cromwell usurped his prerogatives, and violated the English constitution; but he did not transgress thosegreat primal principles of truth, for which constitutions are made. Helooked beyond constitutions to abstract laws of justice; and it nevercan be laid to his charge that he slighted these, or proved a weak orwicked ruler. He quarrelled with parliament, because the parliamentwished to perpetuate its existence unlawfully and meanly, and wasmoreover unwilling and unable to cope with many difficulties whichconstantly arose. It may be supposed that Cromwell may thus havethought: "I will not support the parliament, for it will not maintainlaw; it will not legislate wisely or beneficently; it seeks its own, not the nation's good. And therefore I take away its existence, andrule myself; for I have the fear of God before my eyes, and amdetermined to rule by his laws, and to advance his glory. " Deluded hewas; blinded by ambition he may have been but he sought to elevate hiscountry; and his efforts in her behalf are appreciated and praised bythe very men who are most severe on his undoubted usurpation. 

[Sidenote: The Rump Parliament. ]

[Sidenote: Dispersion of the Parliament. ]

Shortly after the Long Parliament was purged, at the instigation ofCromwell, and had become the Rump Parliament, as it was derisivelycalled, it appointed a committee to take into consideration the timewhen their powers should cease. But the battle of Worcester was foughtbefore any thing was done, except to determine that future parliamentsshould consist of four hundred members, and that the existing membersshould be returned, in the next parliament, for the places they thenrepresented. At length, in December, 1651, it was decided, through theurgent entreaties of Cromwell, but only by a small majority, that thepresent parliament should cease in November, 1654. Thus it was obviousto Cromwell that the parliament, reduced as it was, and composed ofIndependents, was jealous of him, and also was aiming to perpetuateits own existence, against all the principles of a representativegovernment. Such are men, so greedy of power themselves, so censoriousin regard to the violation of justice by others, so blind to theviolation of justice by themselves. Cromwell was not the man to permitthe usurpation of power by a body of forty or sixty Independents, however willing he was to assume it himself. Beside, the RumpParliament was inefficient, and did not consult the interests of thecountry. There was general complaint. But none complained morebitterly than Cromwell himself. Meeting Whitelock, who then held thegreat seal, he said that the "army was beginning to have a strangedistaste against them; that their pride, and ambition, andself-seeking; their engrossing all places of honor and profit tothemselves and their friends; their daily breaking into new andviolent parties; their delays of business, and design to perpetuatethemselves, and continue the power in their own hands; their meddlingin private matters between party and party, their injustice andpartiality; the scandalous lives of some of them, do give too muchground for people to open their mouths against them; and unless therebe some power to check them, it will be impossible to prevent ourruin. " These things Whitelock admitted, but did not see how they couldbe removed since both he and Cromwell held their commissions from thissame parliament, which was the supreme authority. But Cromwell thoughtthere was nothing to hope, and every thing to fear, from such a bodyof men; that they would destroy what the Lord had done. "We all forgetGod, " said he, "and God will forget us. He will give us up toconfusion, and these men will help it on, if left to themselves. " Thenhe asked the great lawyer and chancellor, "What if a man should takeupon himself to be king?"--evidently having in view the regal power. But Whitelock presented such powerful reasons against it, thatCromwell gave up the idea, though he was resolved to destroy theparliament. He then held repeated conferences with the officers of thearmy, who sympathized with him, and who supported him. At last, whileparliament was about to pass an obnoxious bill, Cromwell hurried tothe House, taking with him a file of musketeers, having resolved whathe would do. These he left in the lobby, and, taking his seat, listened a while to the discussion, and then rose, and addressed theHouse. Waxing warm, he told them, in violent language, "that they weredeniers of justice, were oppressive, profane men, were planning tobring in Presbyterians, and would lose no time in destroying the causethey had deserted. " Sir Harry Vane and Sir Peter Wentworth rose toremonstrate, but Cromwell, leaving his seat, walked up and down thefloor, with his hat on, reproached the different members, who againremonstrated. But Cromwell, raising his voice, exclaimed, "You are noparliament. Get you gone. Give way to honester men. " Then, stampingwith his feet, the door opened, and the musketeers entered, and themembers were dispersed, after giving vent to their feelings in thelanguage of reproach. Most of them wore swords, but none offeredresistance to the man they feared, and tamely departed. 

Thus was the constitution utterly subverted, and parliament, as wellas the throne, destroyed. Cromwell published, the next day, avindication of his conduct, setting forth the incapacity, selfishnessand corruption of the parliament, in which were some of the best menEngland ever had, including Sir Harry Vane, Algernon Sydney, and SirPeter Wentworth. 

His next step was to order the continuance of all the courts ofjustice, as before, and summon a new parliament, the members of whichwere nominated by himself and his council of officers. The army, withCromwell at the head, was now the supreme authority. 

The new parliament, composed of one hundred and twenty persons, assembled on the 4th of July, when Cromwell explained the reason ofhis conduct, and set forth the mercies of the Lord to England. Thisparliament was not constitutional, since it was not elected by thepeople of England, but by Cromwell, and therefore would be likely tobe his tool. But had the elections been left free, the Presbyterianswould have been returned as the largest party, and they would haveruined the cause which Cromwell and the Independents sought tosupport. In revolutions, there cannot be pursued half measures. Revolutions are the contest between parties. The strongest party gainsthe ascendency, and keeps it if it can--never by old, constitutedlaws. In the English Revolution the Independents gained thisascendency by their valor, enthusiasm, and wisdom. And their greatrepresentative ruled in their name. 

[Sidenote: Cromwell Assumes the Protectorship. ]

The new members of parliament reappointed the old Council of State, atthe head of which was Cromwell, abolished the High Court of Chancery, nominated commissioners to preside in courts of justice, and proceededto other sweeping changes, which alarmed their great nominator, whoinduced them to dissolve themselves and surrender their trust into hishands, under the title of Lord Protector of England, Scotland, andIreland. On the 16th of December, he was installed in his greatoffice, with considerable pomp, in the Court of Chancery, and the newconstitution was read, which invested him with all the powers of aking. It, however, ordained that he should rule with the aid of aparliament, which should have all the functions and powers of the oldparliaments, should be assembled within five months, should last threeyears, and should consist of four hundred and sixty members. Itprovided for the maintenance of the army and navy, of which theprotector was the head, and decided that the great officers of stateshould be chosen by approbation of parliament. Religious tolerationwas proclaimed, and provision made for the support of the clergy. 

[Sidenote: The Dutch War. ]

Thus was the constitution of the nation changed, and a republicsubstituted for a monarchy, at the head of which was the ablest man ofhis age. And there was need of all his abilities. England then wasengaged in war with the Dutch, and the internal state of the nationdemanded the attention of a vigorous mind and a still more vigorousarm. 

The Dutch war was prosecuted with great vigor, and was signalized bythe naval victories of Blake, Dean, and Monk over the celebrated VanTromp and De Ruyter, the Dutch admirals. The war was caused by thecommercial jealousies of the two nations, and by the unwillingness ofthe Prince of Orange, who had married a daughter of Charles I. , toacknowledge the ambassador of the new English republic. But thesuperiority which the English sailors evinced, soon taught the Dutchhow dangerous it was to provoke a nation which should be its ally onall grounds of national policy, and peace was therefore honorablysecured after a most successful war. 

The war being ended, the protector had more leisure to attend tobusiness at home. Sir Matthew Hale was made chief justice, andThurloe, secretary of state; disorganizers were punished; aninsurrection in Scotland was quelled by General Monk; and order andlaw were restored. 

Meanwhile, the new parliament, the first which had been freely electedfor fourteen years, soon manifested a spirit of opposition toCromwell, deferred to vote him supplies, and annoyed him all in itspower. Still he permitted the members to discuss trifling subjects andwaste their time for five months; but, at the earliest time the newconstitution would allow, he summoned them to the Painted Chamber, made them a long speech, reminded them of their neglect in attendingto the interests of the nation, while disputing about abstractquestions, even while it was beset with dangers and difficulties, andthen dissolved them, (January 22, 1656. )

[Sidenote: Cromwell Rules without a Parliament. ]

For the next eighteen months, he ruled without a parliament and foundno difficulty in raising supplies, and supporting his now unlimitedpower. During this time, he suppressed a dangerous insurrection inEngland itself, and carried on a successful and brilliant war againstSpain, a power which he hated with all the capacity of hatred of whichhis nation has shown itself occasionally so capable. In the naval warwith Spain, Blake was again the hero. During the contest the richisland of Jamaica was conquered from the Spanish, a possession whichEngland has ever since greatly valued. 

Encouraged by his successes, Cromwell now called a third parliament, which he opened the 17th of September, 1656, after ejecting onehundred of the members, on account of their political sentiments. Thenew House voted for the prosecution of the Spanish war, granted amplesupplies, and offered to Cromwell the title of king. But his councilviolently opposed it, and Cromwell found it expedient to relinquishthis object of his heart. But his protectorate was continued to him, and he was empowered to nominate his successor. 

In a short time, however, the spirit of the new parliament wasmanifested, not only by violent opposition to the protector, but inacts which would, if carried out, have subverted the government again, and have plunged England in anarchy. It was plain that the protectorcould not rule with a real representation of the nation. So hedissolved it; and thus ended the last effort of Cromwell to rule witha parliament; or, as his advocates say, to restore the constitution ofhis country. It was plain that there was too much party animosity andparty ambition to permit the protector, shackled by the law, to carryout his designs of order and good government. Self-preservationcompelled him to be suspicious and despotic, and also to prohibit theexercise of the Catholic worship, and to curtail the religious rightsof the Quakers, Socinians, and Jews. The continual plottings andpolitical disaffections of these parties forced him to rule on asystem to which he was not at first inclined. England was not yetprepared for the civil and religious liberty at which the advocates ofrevolution had at first aimed. 

So Cromwell now resolved to rule alone. And he ruled well. His armieswere victorious on the continent, and England was respected abroad, and prospered at home. The most able and upright men were appointed tooffice. The chairs of the universities were filled with illustriousscholars, and the bench adorned with learned and honest judges. Hedefended the great interests of Protestantism on the Continent, andformed alliances which contributed to the political and commercialgreatness of his country. He generously assisted the persecutedProtestants in the valleys of Piedmont, and refused to make treatieswith hostile powers unless the religious liberties of the Protestantswere respected. He lived at Hampton Court, the old palace of CardinalWolsey, in simple and sober dignity; nor was debauchery or riot seenat his court. He lived simply and unostentatiously, and to the lastpreserved the form, and perhaps the spirit, of his early piety. Hesurrounded himself with learned men, and patronized poets andscholars. Milton was his familiar guest, and the youthful Dryden wasnot excluded from his table. An outward morality, at least, wasgenerally observed, and the strictest discipline was kept at hiscourt. 

Had Cromwell's life been prolonged to threescore and ten, the historyof England might have been different for the next two hundred years. But such was not his fortune. Providence removed him from the scene ofhis conflicts and his heroism not long after the dissolution of hislast parliament. The death of a favorite daughter preyed upon hismind, and the cares of government undermined his constitution. He diedon the 3d of September, 1658, the anniversary of his great battles ofWorcester and Dunbar, in the sixtieth year of his age. 

Two or three nights before he died, he was heard to ejaculate thefollowing prayer, in the anticipation of his speedy departure; "Lord, though I am a miserable and wretched creature, I am in covenant withthee, through thy grace; and I may, I will come to thee, for thypeople. Thou hast made me, though very unworthy, a mean instrument todo them good, and Thee service; and many of them have set too highvalue upon me, though others wish and would be glad of my death. Lord, however Thou disposest of me, continue and go on to do good to them. Give them consistency of judgment, one heart, and mutual love; and, with the work of reformation, go on to deliver them, and make the nameof Christ glorious in the world. Teach those who look too much on thyinstrument to depend more upon Thyself. Pardon such as desire totrample upon the dust of a poor worm, for they are Thy people too. Andpardon the folly of this short prayer, even for Jesus Christ's sake. And give me a good night, if it be Thy pleasure. Amen. "

Thus closed the career of Oliver Cromwell, the most remarkable man inthe list of England's heroes. His motives and his honesty have oftenbeen impeached, and sometimes by the most excellent anddiscriminating, but oftener by heated partisans, who had no sympathywith his reforms or opinions. His genius, however, has never beenquestioned, nor his extraordinary talent, for governing a nation inthe most eventful period of its history. And there is a large class, and that class an increasing one, not confined to Independents orrepublicans, who look upon him as one habitually governed by a sternsense of duty, as a man who feared God and regarded justice, as a mansincerely devoted to the best interests of his country, and deservingof the highest praises of all enlightened critics. No man has everbeen more extravagantly eulogized, or been the subject of moreunsparing abuse and more cordial detestation. Some are incapable ofviewing him in any other light than as a profound hypocrite andambitious despot, while others see in him nothing but the saint andunspotted ruler. He had his defects; for human nature, in allinstances, is weak; but in spite of these, and of many and greatinconsistencies, from which no sophistry can clear him, his great andvaried excellences will ever entitle him to the rank accorded to himby such writers as Vaughan and Carlyle. 

[Sidenote: Regal Government Restored. ]

With the death of Cromwell virtually ended the republic. "Puritanismwithout its king, is kingless, anarchic, falls into dislocation, staggers, and plunges into even deeper anarchy. " His son Richard, according to his will, was proclaimed protector in his stead. But hisreign was short. Petitions poured in from every quarter for therestoration of parliament. It was restored, and also with it royaltyitself. General Monk advanced with his army from Scotland, andquartered in London. In May, 1660, Charles II. Was proclaimed king atthe gates of Westminster Hall. The experiment of a republic had beentried, and failed. Puritanism veiled its face. It was no longer thespirit of the nation. A great reaction commenced. Royalty, with newbut disguised despotism, resumed its sway. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Carlyle's, Dr. Vaughan's, and D'Aubigné's Life of Cromwell. Neal's History of the Puritans. Macaulay's History of England. Godwin's Commonwealth. The common histories of England. Milton's prose writings may be profitably read in this connection, and the various reviews and essays which have of late been written, on the character of Cromwell. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 

[Sidenote: The Restoration. ]

[Sidenote: Great Public Rejoicings. ]

Few events in English history have ever been hailed with greaterpopular enthusiasm than the restoration of Charles II. On the 25th ofMay, 1660, he landed near Dover, with his two brothers, the Dukes ofYork and Gloucester. On the 29th of May, he made his triumphal entryinto London. It was his birthday, he was thirty years of age, and inthe full maturity of manly beauty, while his gracious manners andcaptivating speech made him the favorite of the people, as well as ofthe old nobility. The season was full of charms, and the spirits ofall classes were buoyant with hope. Every thing conspired to give aglow to the popular enthusiasm. A long line of illustrious monarchswas restored. The hateful fires of religious fanaticism wereapparently extinguished. An accomplished sovereign, disciplined in theschool of adversity, of brilliant talents, amiable temper, fascinatingmanners, and singular experiences, had returned to the throne of hisancestors, and had sworn to rule by the laws, to forget old offences, and promote liberty of conscience. No longer should there be agovernment of soldiers, nor the rule of a man hostile to thosepleasures and opinions which had ever been dear to the English people. With the return of the exiled prince, should also return joy, peace, and prosperity. For seventeen years, there had been violent politicaland social animosities, war, tyranny, social restraints, and religiousfanaticism. But order and law were now to be reëstablished, and thereign of cant and hypocrisy was now to end. Justice and mercy were tomeet together in the person of a king who was represented to have allthe virtues and none of the vices of his station and his times. Sopeople reasoned and felt, of all classes and conditions. And whyshould they not rejoice in the restoration of such blessings? The wayswere strewn with flowers, the bells sent forth a merry peal, thestreets were hung with tapestries; while aldermen with their heavychains, nobles in their robes of pomp, ladies with their silks andsatins, and waving handkerchiefs, filling all the balconies andwindows; musicians, dancers, and exulting crowds, --all welcomed thereturn of Charles. Never was there so great a jubilee in London; andnever did monarch receive such addresses of flattery and loyalty. "Dread monarch, " said the Earl of Manchester, in the House of Lords, "I offer no flattering titles. You are the desire of three kingdoms, the strength and stay of the tribes of the people. " "Most royalsovereign, " said one of the deputations, "the hearts of all are filledwith veneration for you, confidence in you, longings for you. Alldegrees, and ages, and sexes, high, low, rich and poor, men, women, and children, join in sending up to Heaven one prayer, 'Long live KingCharles II. ;' so that the English air is not susceptible of any othersound, bells, bonfires, peals of ordnance, shouts, and acclamations ofthe people bear no other moral; nor can his majesty conceive with whatjoy, what cheerfulness, what lettings out of the soul, whatexpressions of transported minds, a stupendous concourse of peopleattended the proclamation of their most potent, most mighty, and mostundoubted king. " Such was the adulatory language addressed by theEnglish people to the son of the king they had murdered, and to a mannoted for every frivolity and vice that could degrade a sovereign. What are we to think of that public joy, and public sycophancy, afterso many years of hard fighting for civil and religious liberty? Forwhat were the battles of Naseby and Worcester? For what the SolemnLeague and Covenant? For what the trial and execution of Charles I. ?For what the elevation of Cromwell? Alas! for what were all theexperiments and sufferings of twenty years, the breaking up of old andmighty customs, and twenty years of blood, usurpation, and change?What were the benefits of the Revolution? Or, had it no benefits? Howhappened it that a whole nation should simultaneously rise and expeltheir monarch from a throne which his ancestors had enjoyed for sixhundred years, and then, in so short a time, have elevated to this oldthrone, which was supposed to be subverted forever, the son of theirinsulted, humiliated, and murdered king? and this without bloodshed, with every demonstration of national rejoicings, and with everyexternal mark of repentance for their past conduct. Charles, too, wasrestored without any of those limitations by which the nation soughtto curtail the power of his father. The nation surrendered to him moreabsolute power than the most ambitious kings, since the reign of John, had ever claimed, --more than he ever dared to expect. How shall weexplain these things? And what is the moral which they teach?

[Sidenote: Reaction to Revolutionary Principles. ]

One fact is obvious, --that a great reaction had taken place in thenational mind as to revolutionary principles. It is evident that agreat disgust for the government of Cromwell had succeeded theantipathy to the royal government of Charles. All classes as ardentlydesired the restoration, as they had before favored the rebellion. Even the old parliamentarians hailed the return of Charles, notwithstanding it was admitted that the protectorate was a vigorousadministration; that law and order were enforced; that religiousliberty was proclaimed; that the rights of conscience were respected;that literature and science were encouraged; that the morals of thepeople were purified; that the ordinances of religion were observed;that vice and folly were discouraged; that justice was ablyadministered; that peace and plenty were enjoyed; that prosperityattended the English arms abroad; and that the nation was as muchrespected abroad as it was prosperous at home. These things wereadmitted by the very people who rejoiced in the restoration. And yet, in spite of all these substantial blessings, the reign of Cromwell wasodious. Why was this?

It can only be explained on the supposition that there were_unendurable evils_ connected with the administration of Cromwell, which more than balanced the benefits he conferred; or, thatexpectations were held out by Charles of national benefits greaterthan those conferred by the republic; or, that the nation had soretrograded in elevation of sentiment as to be unable to appreciatethe excellences of Cromwell's administration. 

There is much to support all of these suppositions. In regard to theevils connected with the republic, it is certain that a large standingarmy was supported, and was necessary to uphold the government of theprotector, in order to give to it efficiency and character. This armywas expensive, and the people felt the burden. They always complainunder taxation, whether necessary or not. Taxes ever make anygovernment unpopular, and made the administration of Cromwellespecially so. And the army showed the existence of a militarydespotism, which, however imperatively called for, or renderedunavoidable by revolution, was still a hateful fact. The English neverhave liked the principle of a military despotism. And it was a bitterreflection to feel that so much blood and treasure had been expendedto get rid of the arbitrary rule of the Stuarts, only to introduce astill more expensive and arbitrary government, under the name of arepublic. Moreover, the eyes of the people were opened to the moralcorruptions incident to the support of a large army, without which thepower of Cromwell would have been unsubstantial. He may originallyhave desired to establish his power on a civil basis, rather than amilitary one; but his desires were not realized. The parliaments whichhe assembled were unpractical and disorderly. He was forced to rulewithout them. But the nation could not forget this great insult totheir liberties, and to those privileges which had ever been dear tothem. The preponderance of the civil power has, for several centuries, characterized the government; and no blessings were sufficiently greatto balance the evil, in the eye of an Englishman, of the preponderanceof a military government, neither the excellence of Cromwell's life, nor the glory and greatness to which he raised the nation. 

[Sidenote: Excellences in Charles's Government. ]

Again, much was expected of Charles II. , and there was much in hischaracter and early administration to produce content. His mannerswere agreeable. He had no personal antipathies or jealousies. Heselected, at first, the wisest and best of all parties to be hiscounsellors and ministers. He seemed to forget old offences. He wasfond of pleasure; was good-natured and affable. He summoned a freeparliament. His interests were made to appear identical with those ofthe people. He promised to rule by the laws. He did not openlyinfringe on the constitution. And he restored, what has ever been sodear to the great body of the nation, the Episcopal Church in all itsbeauty and grandeur, while he did not recommence the persecution ofPuritans until some time had elapsed from his restoration. Above all, he disbanded the army, which was always distasteful to thepeople, --odious, onerous, and oppressive. The civil power againtriumphed over that of the military, and circumstances existed whichrendered the subversion of liberty very difficult. Many adverse eventstranspired during his unfortunate and disgraceful reign; but these, inthe early part of it, had not, of course, been anticipated. 

[Sidenote: Failure of the Puritan Experiment. ]

There is also force in the third supposition, that the nation hadretrograded in moral elevation. All writers speak of a strong reactionto the religious fervor of the early revolutionists. The moralinfluence of the army had proved destructive to the habits andsentiments of the people. A strong love of pleasure and demoralizingamusements existed, when Charles was recalled. A general laxity ofmorals was lamented by the wisest and best of the nation. Thereligious convictions of enthusiasts survived their sympathies. Hypocrisy and cant succeeded fervor and honesty. Infidelity lurked inmany a bosom in which devotional ardor had once warmly burned. Distrust of all philanthropy and all human virtue was as marked, asfaith in the same previously had been. The ordinances of religionbecame irksome, and it was remembered with bitterness that thePuritans, in the days of their ascendency, had cruelly proscribed themost favorite pleasures and time-honored festivals of old England. Butthe love of them returned with redoubled vigor. May-poles, wrestling-matches, bear-baitings, puppet-shows, bowls, horse-racing, betting, rope-dancing, romping under the mistletoe on Christmas, eating boars' heads, attending the theatres, health-drinking, --allthese old-fashioned ways, in which the English sought merriment, wererestored. The evil was chiefly in the excess to which these pleasureswere carried; and every thing, which bore any resemblance to thePuritans, was ridiculed and despised. The nation, as a nation, did notlove Puritanism, or any thing pertaining to it, after the deepreligious excitement had passed away. The people were ashamed ofprayer-meetings, of speaking through their noses, of wearing theirhair straight, of having their garments cut primly, of calling theirchildren by the name of Moses, Joshua, Jeremiah, Obadiah, &c. ; and, inshort, of all customs and opinions peculiar to the Extreme Puritans. So general was the disgust of Puritanism, so eager were all to indulgein the pleasures that had been forbidden under the reign of Cromwell, so sick were they of the very name of republicanism, that Puritanismmay be said to have proved, in England, a signal failure. 

Such were some of the reasons of popular acclamation on therestoration of Charles II. , and which we cannot consider entirelywithout force. A state of mind existed in England as favorable to theencroachments of royalty, as, twenty years before, it had beenunfavorable. 

Charles was not a high-minded, or honest, or patriotic king; andtherefore we might naturally expect the growth of absolutism duringhis reign. The progress of absolutism is, indeed, one of its features. This, for a time, demands our notice. 

On the restoration of Charles II. , his subjects made no particularstipulations respecting their liberties, which were incautiouslyintrusted to his hands. But, at first, he did not seem inclined tograsp at greater powers than what the constitution allowed him. He hadthe right to appoint the great officers of state, the privilege ofveto on legislative enactments, the control of the army and navy, theregulation of all foreign intercourse, and the right of making peaceand war. But the constitution did not allow him to rule without aparliament, or to raise taxes without its consent. The parliamentmight grant or withhold supplies at pleasure, and all money billsoriginated and were discussed in the House of Commons alone. Thesewere the great principles of the English constitution, which Charlesswore to maintain. 

[Sidenote: Repeal of the Triennial Bill. ]

The first form in which the encroaching temper of the king wasmanifested was, in causing the Triennial Bill to be repealed. This wasindeed done by the parliament, but through the royal influence. Thisbill was not that a parliament should be assembled every three years, but that the interval between one session and another should notexceed that period. But this wise law, which had passed by acclamationduring the reign of Charles I. , and for which even Clarendon hadvoted, was regarded by Charles II. As subversive of the liberty of hiscrown; and a supple, degenerate and sycophantic parliament gratifiedhis wishes. 

About the same time was passed the Corporation Act, which enjoined allmagistrates, and persons of trust in corporations, to swear that theybelieved it unlawful, under any pretence whatever to take arms againstthe king. The Presbyterians refused to take this oath; and they weretherefore excluded from offices of dignity and trust. The act borehard upon all bodies of Dissenters and Roman Catholics, the former ofwhom were most cruelly persecuted in this reign. 

[Sidenote: Secret Alliance with Louis XIV. ]

The next most noticeable effort of Charles to extend his powerindependently of the law, was his secret alliance with Louis XIV. Thiswas not known to the nation, and even but to few of his ministers, andwas the most disgraceful act of his reign. For the miserable stipendof two hundred thousand pounds a year, he was ready to compromise theinterests of the kingdom, and make himself the slave of the mostambitious sovereign in Europe. He became a pensioner of France, andyet did not feel his disgrace. Clarendon, attached as he was tomonarchy, and to the house of Stuart, could not join him in his baseintrigues; and therefore lost, as was to be expected, the royal favor. He had been the companion and counsellor of Charles in the days of hisexile; he had attempted to enkindle in his mind the desire of greatdeeds and virtues; he had faithfully served him as chancellor andprime minister; he was impartial and incorruptible; he was as muchattached to Episcopacy, as he was to monarchy; he had even advisedCharles to rule without a parliament; and yet he was disgraced becausehe would not comply with all the wishes of his unscrupulous master. But Clarendon was, nevertheless, unpopular with the nation. He hadadvised Charles to sell Dunkirk, the proudest trophy of theRevolution, and had built for himself a splendid palace, on the siteof the present Clarendon Hotel, in Albemarle Street, which the peoplecalled _Dunkirk House_. He was proud, ostentatious, and dictatorial, and was bitterly hostile to all democratic influences. He was too goodfor one party, and not good enough for the other, and therefore fellto the ground; but he retired, if not with dignity, at least withsafety. He retreated to the Continent, and there wrote his celebratedhistory of the Great Rebellion, a partial and bitter history, yet avaluable record of the great events of the age of revolution which hehad witnessed and detested. 

Charles received the bribe of two hundred thousand pounds from theFrench king, with the hope of being made independent of hisparliament, and with the condition of assisting Louis XIV. In hisaggressive wars on the liberties of Europe, especially those ofHolland. He was, at heart an absolutist, and rejoiced in the victoriesof the "Grand Monarch. " But this supply was scarcely sufficient evenfor his pleasures, much less to support the ordinary pomp of amonarchy, and the civil and military powers of the state. So he had toresort to other means. 

[Sidenote: Venality and Sycophancy of Parliament. ]

It happened, fortunately for his encroachments, but unfortunately forthe nation, that the English parliament, at that period, was morecorrupt, venal, base, and sycophantic than at any period under theTudor kings, or at any subsequent period under the Hanoverian princes. The House of Commons made no indignant resistance; it sent up but fewspirited remonstrances; but tamely acquiesced in the measures ofCharles and his ministers. Its members were bought and sold withunblushing facility, and even were corrupted by the agents of theFrench king. One member received six thousand pounds for his vote. Twenty-nine of the members received from five hundred to twelvehundred pounds a year. Charles I. Attempted to rule by opposition tothe parliament; Charles II. By corrupting it. Hence it was nearlysilent in view of his arbitrary spirit, his repeated encroachments, and his worthless public character. 

Among his worst acts was his shutting up the Exchequer, where thebankers and merchants had been in the habit of depositing money on thesecurity of the funds, receiving a large interest of from eight to tenper cent. By closing the Exchequer, the bankers, unable to draw outtheir money, stopped payment; and a universal panic was theconsequence, during which many great failures happened. By this baseviolation of the public faith, Charles obtained one million threehundred thousand pounds. But it undermined his popularity more thanany of his acts, since he touched the pockets of the people. Theodium, however, fell chiefly on his ministers, especially those whoreceived the name of the _Cabal_, from the fact that the initials oftheir names spelt that odious term of reproach, not unmerited in theircase. 

These five ministers were Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, andLauderdale, and they were the great instruments of his tyranny. Noneof them had the talents or audacity of Strafford, or the narrownessand bigotry of Laud; but their counsels were injurious to the nation. 

Clifford and Arlington were tolerably respectable but indifferent tothe glory and shame of their country; while Buckingham, Ashley, andLauderdale were profligate, unprincipled, and dishonest to a greatdegree. They aided Charles to corrupt the parliament and deceive thenation. They removed all restraints on his will, and pandered to hisdepraved tastes. It was by their suggestion that the king shut up theExchequer. They also favored restrictions on the press. 

[Sidenote: Restrictions on the Press. ]

These restrictions were another abomination in the reign of Charles, but one ever peculiar to a despotic government. No book could beprinted out of London, York, or the Universities. But these were notmade wholly with a view of shackling the mind, but to prevent thoselibels and lampoons which made the government ridiculous in the eyesof the people. 

Nothing caused more popular indignation, during this reign, than theForfeiture of the Corporation of the City of London. The power of thedemocracy resided, at this time, with the corporations, and as long asthey were actuated by the spirit of liberty, there was no prospect ofobtaining a parliament entirely subservient to the king. It wasdetermined to take away their charters; and the infamous JudgeJeffreys was found a most subservient tool of royalty in underminingthe liberties of the country. The corporation of London, however, received back its charter, after having yielded to the king the rightof conferring the appointments of mayor, recorder, and sheriffs. 

Among other infringements on the constitution was the fining of jurorswhen they refused to act according to the direction of the judges. Juries were constantly intimidated, and their privileges wereabridged. A new parliament, moreover, was not convoked after threeyears had elapsed from the dissolution of the old one, whichinfringement was the more reprehensible, since the king had nothing tofear from the new House of Commons, the members of which vied witheach other in a base compliancy with the royal will. 

But their sycophancy was nothing compared with what the bishops andclergy of the Established Church generally evinced. Absolutenon-resistance was inculcated from the pulpits, and the doctrineridiculed that power emanated from the people. The divine rights ofkings, and the divine ordination of absolute power were the themes ofdivines, while Oxford proclaimed doctrines worthy of Mariana and theJesuits. 

Thus various influences contributed to make Charles II. Absolute inEngland--the Courts of Justice, the Parliaments, the Universities, andthe Church of England. Had he been as ambitious as he was fond ofpleasure, as capable of ruling as he was capable of telling stories atthe dinner table, he would, like Louis XIV. , have reared an absolutethrone in England. But he was too easy, too careless, too fond ofpleasure to concentrate his thoughts on devising means to enslave hissubjects. 

[Sidenote: Habeas Corpus Act. ]

It must not, however, be supposed that all his subjects wereindifferent to his encroachments, in spite of the great reaction whichhad succeeded to liberal sentiments. Before he died, the spirit ofresistance was beginning to be seen, and some checks to royal powerwere imposed by parliament itself. The Habeas Corpus Act, the mostimportant since the declaration of Magna Charta, was passed, andthrough the influence of one of his former ministers, Ashley, nowbecome Earl of Shaftesbury, who took the popular side, after havingserved all sides, but always with a view of advancing his owninterests, a man of great versatility of genius, of great sagacity, and of varied learning. Had Charles continued much longer on thethrone, it cannot be doubted that the nation would have been finallyaroused to resist his spirit of encroachment, for the principles ofliberty had not been proclaimed in vain. 

Charles II. Was a tyrant, and one of the worst kings that ever sat onthe English throne. His leading defect was want of earnestness ofcharacter, which made him indifferent to the welfare of his country. England, during his reign, was reduced to comparative insignificancein the eyes of foreigners, and was neither feared nor respected. Herking was neither a powerful friend nor an implacable enemy, and leftthe Continental Powers to pursue their own ends unmolested andunrebuked. Most of the administrations of the English kings areinterlinked with the whole system of European politics. But the reignof Charles is chiefly interesting in relation to the domestic historyof England. This history is chiefly the cabals of ministers, theintrigues of the court, the pleasures and follies of the king, theattacks he made on the constitution without any direct warfare withhis parliament and the system of religious persecution, which was mostintolerant. 

The king was at heart a Catholic; and yet the persecution of theCatholics is one of the most signal events of the times. We canscarcely conceive, in this age, of the spirit of distrust and fearwhich pervaded the national mind in reference to the Catholics. Everycalumny was believed. Every trifling offence was exaggerated, and bynearly all classes in the community, by the Episcopalians, as well asby the Presbyterians and the Independents. 

[Sidenote: Titus Oates. ]

The most memorable of all the delusions and slanders of the times wasproduced by the perjuries of an unprincipled wretch called TitusOates, who took advantage of the general infatuation to advance hisindividual interests. Like an artful politician, he had only to appealto a dominant passion or prejudice, and he was sure of making hisfortune. Like a cunning, popular orator, he had only to inflame thepassions of the people, and he would pass as a genius and a prophet. Few are so abstractedly and coldly intellectual as not to be mainlygoverned by their tastes or passions. Even men of strong intellecthave frequently strong prejudices, and one has only to make himselfmaster of these, in order to lead those who are infinitely theirsuperiors. There is no proof that all who persecuted the Catholics inCharles's time were either weak or ignorant. But there is evidence ofunbounded animosity, a traditional hatred, not much diminished sincethe Gunpowder Plot of Guy Fawkes. The whole nation was ready tobelieve any thing against the Catholics, and especially against theirchurch, which was supposed to be persecuting and diabolical in all itsprinciples and in all its practice. In this state of the popular mind, Oates made his hideous revelations. 

[Sidenote: Oates's Revelations. ]

He was a broken-down clergyman of the Established Church, and had lostcaste for disgraceful irregularities. But he professed to hate theCatholics, and such a virtue secured him friends. Among these was theRev. Dr. Tonge, a man very weak, very credulous, and full of fearsrespecting the intrigues of the Catholics but honest in his fears. Oates went to this clergyman, and a plan was concerted between them, by which Oates should get a knowledge of the supposed intrigues of theChurch of Rome. He professed himself a Catholic, went to theContinent, and entered a Catholic seminary, but was soon dischargedfor his scandalous irregularities. But he had been a Catholic longenough for his purposes. He returned to London, and revealed hispretended discoveries, among which he declared that the Jesuits hadundertaken to restore the Catholic religion in England by force; thatthey were resolved to take the king's life, and had actually offered abribe of fifteen thousand pounds to the queen's physician; that theyhad planned to burn London, and to set fire to all the shipping in theThames; that they were plotting to make a general massacre of theProtestants; that a French army was about to invade England; and thatall the horrors of St. Bartholomew were to be again acted over!Ridiculous as were these assertions, they were believed, and without aparticle of evidence; so great was the national infatuation. The kingand the Duke of York both pronounced the whole matter a forgery, andlaughed at the credulity of the people, but had not sufficientgenerosity to prevent the triumph of the libellers. But Oates'stestimony was not enough to convict any one, the law requiring twowitnesses. But, in such a corrupt age, false witnesses could easily beprocured. An infamous wretch, by the name of Bedloe, was bribed, a manwho had been imprisoned in Newgate for swindling. Others equallyunscrupulous were soon added to the list of informers, and nocalumnies, however gross and absurd, prevented the people frombelieving them. 

It happened that a man, by the name of Coleman, was suspected ofintrigues. His papers were searched, and some passages in them, unfortunately, seemed to confirm the statements of Oates. To impartialeyes, these papers simply indicated a desire and a hope that theCatholic religion would be reëstablished, in view of the predilectionsof Charles and James, and the general posture of affairs, just as someenthusiastic Jesuit missionary in the valley of the Mississippi may besupposed to write to his superior that America is on the eve ofconversion to Catholicism. 

[Sidenote: Penal Laws against Catholics. ]

But the general ferment was still more increased by the disappearanceof an eminent justice of the peace, who had taken the depositions ofOates against Coleman. Sir Edmondsbury Godfrey was found dead, andwith every mark of violence, in a field near London, and was probablymurdered by some fanatical persons in the communion of the Church ofRome. But if so, the murder was a great blunder. It was worse than acrime. The whole community were mad with rage and fear. The old penallaws were strictly enforced against the Catholics. The jails werefilled with victims. London wore the appearance of a besieged city. The houses of the Catholics were every where searched, and twothousand of them imprisoned. Posts were planted in the street, thatchains might be thrown across them on the first alarm. The military, the train bands, and the volunteers were called out. Forty thousandmen were kept under guard during the night. Numerous patrols paradedthe streets. The gates of the Palace were closed, and the guards ofthe city were doubled. Oates was pronounced to be the savior of hiscountry, lodged at Whitehall and pensioned with twelve hundred poundsa year. 

Then flowed more innocent blood than had been shed for a long period. Catholics who were noble, and Catholics who were obscure, were alikejudicially murdered; and the courts of justice, instead of beingplaces of refuge, were disgraced by the foulest abominations. Everyday new witnesses were produced of crimes which never happened, andnew victims were offered up to appease the wrath of a prejudicedpeople. Among these victims of popular frenzy was the Earl ofStafford, a venerable and venerated nobleman of sixty-nine years ofage, against whom sufficient evidence was not found to convict him;and whose only crime was in being at the head of the Catholic party. Yet he was found guilty by the House of Peers, fifty-five out ofeighty-six having voted for his execution. He died on the scaffold, but with the greatest serenity, forgiving his persecutors, andcompassionating their delusions. A future generation, during the reignof George IV. , however, reversed his attainder, and did justice to hismemory, and restored his descendants to their rank and fortune. 

[Sidenote: Persecution of Dissenters. ]

If no other illustrious victims suffered, persecution was neverthelessdirected into other channels. Parliament passed an act that no personshould sit in either House, unless he had previously taken the oath ofallegiance and supremacy, and subscribed to the declaration that theworship of the Church of Rome was idolatrous. Catholics were disabledfrom prosecuting a suit in any court of law, from receiving anylegacy, and from acting as executors or administrators of estates. This horrid bill, which outlawed the whole Catholic population, hadrepeatedly miscarried, but, under influence of the panic which Oatesand his confederates created, was now triumphantly passed. Charleshimself gave his royal assent because he was afraid to stem thetorrent of popular infatuation. And the English nation permitted onehundred and thirty years to elapse before the civil disabilities ofthe Catholics were removed, and then only by the most strenuousexertions of such a statesman as Sir Robert Peel. 

It is some satisfaction to know that justice at last overtook thechief authors of this diabolical infatuation. During the reign ofJames II. , Oates and others were punished as they deserved. Oates'scredit gradually passed away. He was fined, imprisoned, and whipped atthe pillory until life itself had nearly fled. He died unlamented anddetested, leaving behind him, to all posterity an infamous notoriety. 

But the sufferings of the Catholics, during this reign, were more thanexceeded by the sufferings of Dissenters, who were cruelly persecuted. All the various sects of the Protestants were odious and ridiculous inthe eyes of the king. They were regarded as hostile in theirsympathies, and treasonable in their designs. They were fined, imprisoned, mutilated, and whipped. An Act of Uniformity was passed, which restored the old penal laws of Elizabeth, and which subjectedall to their penalty who did not use the Book of Common Prayer, andadhere strictly to the ritual of the Church of England. Theoligarchical power of the bishops was restored, and two thousandministers were driven from their livings, and compelled to seek aprecarious support. Many other acts of flagrant injustice were passedby a subservient parliament, and cruelly carried into execution byunfeeling judges. But the religious persecution of dissenters was notconsummated until the reign of James under whose favor or directionthe inhuman Jeffreys inflicted the most atrocious crimes which haveever been committed under the sanction of the law. But these will bemore appropriately noticed under the reign of James II. Charles wasnot so cruel in his temper, or bigoted in his sentiments, as hisbrother James. He was rather a Gallio than a persecutor. He wouldpermit any thing rather than suffer himself to be interrupted in hispleasures. He was governed by his favorites and his women. He had notsufficient moral elevation to be earnest in any thing, even to be abigot in religion. He vacillated between the infidelity of Hobbes andthe superstitions of Rome. He lived a scoffer, and died a Catholic. His temper was easy, but so easy as not to prevent the persecution andruin of his best supporters, when they had become odious to thenation. If he was incapable of enmity, he was also incapable offriendship. If he hated no one with long-continued malignity, it wasonly because it was too much trouble to hate perseveringly. But heloved with no more constancy than he hated. He had no patriotism, andno appreciation of moral excellence. He would rather see half of themerchants of London ruined, and half of the Dissenters immured ingloomy prisons, than lose two hours of inglorious dalliance with oneof his numerous concubines. A more contemptible prince never sat onthe English throne, or one whose whole reign was disgraced by a moreconstant succession of political blunders and social crimes. And yethe never fully lost his popularity, nor was his reign felt to be asburdensome as was that of the protector, Cromwell, thus showing howlittle the moral excellence of rulers is ordinarily appreciated orvalued by a wilful or blinded generation. We love not the rebukers ofour sins, or the opposers of our pleasures. We love those who prophesysmooth things, and "cry peace, when there is no peace. " Such is man inhis weakness and his degeneracy; and only an omnipotent power canchange this ordinary temper of the devotees to pleasure and ingloriousgains. 

[Sidenote: Execution of Russell and Sydney. ]

Among the saddest events during the reign of Charles, were theexecutions of Lord Russell and Algernon Sydney. They were concerned, with a few other great men, in a conspiracy, which had for its objectthe restoration of greater liberty. They contemplated an insurrection, known by the name of the _Rye House Plot_; but it was discovered, andRussell and Sydney became martyrs. The former was the son of the Earlof Bedford, and the latter was the brother of the Earl of Leicester. Russell was a devoted Churchman, of pure morals, and greatly belovedby the people. Sydney was a strenuous republican, and was opposed toany particular form of church government. He thought that religionshould be like a divine philosophy in the mind, and had greatveneration for the doctrines of Plato. Nothing could save theseillustrious men. The Duke of York and Jeffreys declared that, if theywere not executed, there would be no safety for themselves. They bothsuffered with great intrepidity, and the friends of liberty have eversince cherished their memory with peculiar fondness. 

[Sidenote: Manners and Customs of England. ]

[Sidenote: Milton--Dryden. ]

Mr. Macaulay, in his recent History, has presented the manners andcustoms of England during the disgraceful reign of Charles II. It isimpossible, in this brief survey, to allude to all those customs; butwe direct particularly the attention of readers to them, as describedin his third chapter, from which it would appear, that a most manifestand most glorious progress has been made since that period in all thearts of civilization, both useful and ornamental. In those times, travelling was difficult and slow, from the badness of the roads andthe imperfections of the carriages. Highwaymen were secreted along thethoroughfares, and, in mounted troops, defied the law, and distressedthe whole travelling community. The transmission of letters by postwas tardy and unfrequent, and the scandal of coffee-houses suppliedthe greatest want and the greatest luxury of modern times, thenewspaper. There was great scarcity of books in the country places, and the only press in England north of the Trent seems to have been atYork. Literature was but feebly cultivated by country squires orcountry parsons, and female education was disgracefully neglected. Fewrich men had libraries as large or valuable as are now common toshopkeepers and mechanics; while the literary stores of a lady of themanor were confined chiefly to the prayer-book and the receipt-book. And those works which were produced or read were disgraced bylicentious ribaldry, which had succeeded religious austerity. Thedrama was the only department of literature which compensated authors, and this was scandalous in the extreme. We cannot turn over the pagesof one of the popular dramatists of the age without being shocked bythe most culpable indecency. Even Dryden was no exception to the rule;and his poetry, some of which is the most beautiful in the language, can hardly be put into the hands of the young without danger ofcorrupting them. Poets and all literary men lived by the bounty of therich and great, and prospered only as they pandered to depravedpassions. Many, of great intellectual excellence, died from want andmortification; so that the poverty and distress of literary men becameproverbial, and all worldly-wise people shunned contact with them asexpensive and degrading. They were hunted from cocklofts to cellars bythe minions of the law, and the foulest jails were often their onlyresting-place. The restoration of Charles proved unfortunate to onegreat and immortal genius, whom no temptations could assail, and norewards could bribe. He "possessed his soul in patience, " and "soaredabove the Aonian mount, " amid general levity and profligacy. Had hewritten for a pure, classic, and learned age, he could not havewritten with greater moral beauty. But he lived when no moralexcellence was appreciated, and his claims on the gratitude of theworld are beyond all estimation, when we remember that he wrote withthe full consciousness, like the great Bacon, that his works wouldonly be valued or read by future generations. Milton was, indeed, unmolested; but he was sadly neglected in his blindness and in hisgreatness. But, like all the great teachers of the world, he wassustained by something higher than earthly applause, and labored, likean immortal artist, from the love which his labor excited, --labored torealize the work of art which his imagination had conceived, as wellas to propagate ideas and sentiments which should tend to elevatemankind. Dryden was his contemporary, but obtained a greater homage, not because he was more worthy, but because he adapted his genius tothe taste of a frivolous and corrupt people. He afterwards wrote moreunexceptionably, composed lyrics instead of farces, and satiresinstead of plays. In his latter days, he could afford to write in apurer style; and, as he became independent, he reared thesuperstructure of his glorious fame. But Dryden spent the best partsof his life as a panderer to the vices of the town, and was an idolchiefly, in Wills's Coffee House, of lampooners, and idlers, andscandal-mongers. Nor were there many people, in the church or in thestate, sufficiently influential and noble to stem the torrent. Thecity clergy were the most respectable, and the pulpits of London wereoccupied with twelve men who afterwards became bishops, and who areamong the great ornaments of the sacred literature of their country. Sherlock, Tillotson, Wake, Collier, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Fowler, Sharp, Tennison, and Beveridge made the Established Churchrespected in the town; but the country clergy, as a whole, wereignorant and depressed. Not one living in fifty enabled the incumbentto bring up a family comfortably or respectably. The clergyman wasdisdained even by the county attorney, was hardly tolerated at thetable of his patron, and could scarcely marry beyond the rank of acook or housekeeper. And his poverty and bondage continued so longthat, in the times of Swift, the parson was a byword and a jest amongthe various servants in the households of the great. Still there wereeminent clergymen amid the general depression of their order, both inand out of the Established Church. Besides the London preachers weremany connected with the Universities and Cathedrals; and there weresome distinguished Dissenters, among whom Baxter, Howe, and Alleine ifthere were no others, would alone have made the name of Puritanrespectable. 

[Sidenote: Condition of the People. ]

The saddest fact, in connection with the internal history of England, at this time, was the condition of the people. They had small wages, and many privations. They had no social rank, and were disgraced bymany vices. They were ignorant and brutal. The wages of laborers onlyaveraged four shillings a week, while those of mechanics were notequal to what some ordinarily earn, in this country and in thesetimes, in a single day. Both peasants, and artisans were not only illpaid, but ill used, and they died, miserably and prematurely, fromfamine and disease. Nor did sympathy exist for the misfortunes of thepoor. There were no institutions of public philanthropy. Jails wereunvisited by the ministers of mercy, and the abodes of poverty wereleft by a careless generation to be dens of infamy and crime. Such wasEngland two hundred years ago; and there is no delusion moreunwarranted by sober facts than that which supposes that those formertimes were better than our own, in any thing which abridges the laborsor alleviates the miseries of mankind. "It is now the fashion to placethe golden age of England in times when noblemen were destitute ofcomforts the want of which would be intolerable to a modern footman;when farmers and shopkeepers breakfasted on loaves the very sight ofwhich would raise a riot in a modern workhouse, when men died fasterin the purest country air than they now die in the most pestilentiallanes of our towns; and when men died faster in the lanes of our townsthan they now die on the coast of Guinea. But we too shall, in ourturn, be outstripped, and, in our turn, envied. There is constantimprovement, as there also is constant discontent; and futuregenerations may talk of the reign of Queen Victoria as a time whenEngland was truly merry England, when all classes were bound togetherby brotherly sympathy, when the rich did not grind the faces of thepoor, and when the poor did not envy the splendor of the rich. "

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Of all the works which have yet appeared, respecting this interesting epoch, the new History of Macaulay is the most brilliant and instructive. Indeed, the student scarcely needs any other history, in spite of Macaulay's Whig doctrines. He may sacrifice something to effect; and he may give us pictures, instead of philosophy; but, nevertheless, his book has transcendent merit, and will be read, by all classes, so long as English history is prized. Mackintosh's fragment, on the same period, is more philosophical, and possesses very great merits. Lingard's History is very valuable on this reign, and should be consulted. Hume, also, will never cease to please. Burnet is a prejudiced historian, but his work is an authority. The lives of Milton, Dryden, and Clarendon should also be read in this connection. Hallam has but treated the constitutional history of these times. See also Temple's Works; the Life of William Lord Russell; Rapin's History. Pepys, Dalrymple, Rymeri Foedera, the Commons' Journal, and the Howell State Trials are not easily accessible, and not necessary, except to the historian. 

CHAPTER XV. 

REIGN OF JAMES II. 

[Sidenote: Accession of James II. ]

Charles II. Died on the 6th of February, 1685, and his brother, theDuke of York, ascended his throne, without opposition, under the titleof _James II. _ As is usual with princes, on their accession, he mademany promises of ruling by the laws, and of defending the liberties ofthe nation. And he commenced his administration under good auspices. The country was at peace, he was not unpopular, and all classes andparties readily acquiesced in his government. 

He retained all the great officers who had served under his brotherthat he could trust; and Rochester became prime minister, Sunderlandkept possession of the Seals, and Godolphin was made lord chamberlain. He did not dismiss Halifax, Ormond, or Guildford, although he dislikedand distrusted them, but abridged their powers, and mortified them byneglect. 

The Commons voted him one million two hundred thousand pounds, and theScottish parliament added twenty-five thousand pounds more, and theCustoms for life. But this sum he did not deem sufficient for hiswants, and therefore, like his brother, applied for aid to Louis XIV. , and consented to become his pensioner and vassal, and for the paltrysum of two hundred thousand pounds. James received the money withtears of gratitude, hoping by this infamous pension to rule the nationwithout a parliament. It was not, of course, known to the nation, oreven to his ministers, generally. 

He was scarcely crowned before England was invaded by the Duke ofMonmouth, natural son of Charles II. , and Scotland by the Duke ofArgyle, with a view of ejecting James from the throne. 

Both these noblemen were exiles in Holland, and both were justlyobnoxious to the government for their treasonable intentions and acts. Argyle was loath to engage in an enterprise so desperate as theconquest of England; but he was an enthusiast, was at the head of themost powerful of the Scottish clans, the Campbells, and he hoped for ageneral rising throughout Scotland, to put down what was regarded asidolatry, and to strike a blow for liberty and the Kirk. 

Having concerted his measures with Monmouth, he set sail from Holland, the 2d of May, 1685, in spite of all the efforts of the Englishminister, and landed at Kirkwall, one of the Orkney Islands. But hisobjects were well known, and the whole militia of the land were putunder arms to resist him. He, however, collected a force of twothousand five hundred Highlanders, and marched towards Glasgow; but hewas miserably betrayed and deserted. His forces were dispersed, and hehimself was seized while attempting to escape in disguise, brought toEdinburgh, and beheaded. His followers were treated with greatharshness, but the rebellion was completely suppressed. 

[Sidenote: Monmouth Lands in England. ]

Monmouth had agreed to sail in six days from the departure of Argyle;but he lingered at Brussels, loath to part from a beautiful mistress, the Lady Henrietta Wentworth. It was a month before he set sail fromthe Texel, with about eighty officers and one hundred and fiftyfollowers--a small force to overturn the throne. But he relied on hispopularity with the people, and on a false and exaggerated account ofthe unpopularity of James. He landed at Lyme, in Dorsetshire, aboutthe middle of June, and forthwith issued a flaming proclamation, inviting all to join his standard, as a deliverer from the crueldespotism of a Catholic prince, whom he accused of every crime--of theburning of London, of the Popish Plot, of the condemnation of Russelland Sydney, of poisoning the late king, and of infringements on theconstitution. In this declaration, falsehood was mingled with truth, but well adapted to inflame the passions of the people. He wassupported by many who firmly believed that his mother, Lucy Walters, was the lawful wife of Charles II. He, of course, claimed the Englishthrone, but professed to waive his rights until they should be settledby a parliament. The adventurer grossly misunderstood the temper ofthe people, and the extent to which his claims were recognized. He wasunprovided with money, with generals, and with troops. He collected afew regiments from the common people, and advanced to Somersetshire. At Taunton his reception was flattering. All classes welcomed him as adeliverer from Heaven, and the poor rent the air with acclamations andshouts. His path was strewed with flowers, and the windows werecrowded with ladies, who waved their handkerchiefs, and even waitedupon him with a large deputation. Twenty-six lovely maidens presentedthe handsome son of Charles II. With standards and a Bible, which hekissed, and promised to defend. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Sedgemoor. ]

[Sidenote: Death of Monmouth. ]

But all this enthusiasm was soon to end. The Duke of Albemarle--theson of General Monk, who restored Charles II. --advanced against himwith the militia of the country, and Monmouth was supported only bythe vulgar, the weak, and the credulous. Not a single nobleman joinedhis standard, and but few of the gentry. He made innumerable blunders. He lost time by vain attempts to drill the peasants and farmers whofollowed his fortunes. He slowly advanced to the west of England, where he hoped to be joined by the body of the people. But all men ofstation and influence stood aloof. Discouraged and dismayed, hereached Wells, and pushed forward to capture Bristol, then the secondcity in the kingdom. He was again disappointed. He was forced, fromunexpected calamities, to abandon the enterprise. He then turned hiseye to Wilts; but when he arrived at the borders of the county, hefound that none of the bodies on which he had calculated had madetheir appearance. At Phillips Norton was a slight skirmish, whichended favorably to Monmouth, in which the young Duke of Grafton, natural son of Charles II. , distinguished himself against his halfbrother; but Monmouth was discouraged, and fell back to Bridgewater. Meanwhile the royal army approached, and encamped at Sedgemoor. Herewas fought a decisive battle, which was fatal to the rebels, "the lastdeserving the name of _battle_, that has been fought on Englishground. " Monmouth, when all was lost, fled from the field, andhastened to the British Channel, hoping to gain the Continent. He wasfound near the New Forest, hidden in a ditch, exhausted by hunger andfatigue. He was sent, under a strong guard, to Ringwood; and all thatwas left him was, to prepare to meet the death of a rebel. But heclung to life, so justly forfeited, with singular tenacity. Heabjectly and meanly sued for pardon from that inexorable tyrant whonever forgot or forgave the slightest resistance from a friend, wheneven that resistance was lawful, much less rebellion from a man heboth hated and despised. He was transferred to London, lodged in theTower, and executed in a bungling manner by "Jack Ketch"--the namegiven for several centuries to the public executioner. He was buriedunder St. Peter's Chapel, in the Tower, where reposed the headlessbodies of so many noted saints and political martyrs--the greatSomerset, and the still greater Northumberland, the two Earls ofEssex, and the fourth Duke of Norfolk, and other great men who figuredin the reigns of the Plantagenets and the Tudors. 

Monmouth's rebellion was completely suppressed, and a most signalvengeance was inflicted on all who were concerned in it. No mercy wasshown, on the part of government, to any party or person. 

Of the agents of James in punishing all concerned in the rebellion, there were two, preëminently, whose names are consigned to an infamousimmortality. The records of English history contain no two names soloathsome and hateful as Colonel Kirke and Judge Jeffreys. 

The former was left, by Feversham, in command of the royal forces atBridgewater, after the battle of Sedgemoor. He had already gained anunenviable notoriety, as governor of Tangier, where he displayed theworst vices of a tyrant and a sensualist; and his regiment hadimitated him in his disgraceful brutality. But this leader and thesetroops were now let loose on the people of Somersetshire. One hundredcaptives were put to death during the week which succeeded the battle. His irregular butcheries, however, were not according to the taste ofthe king. A more systematic slaughter, under the sanctions of the law, was devised, and Jeffreys was sent into the Western Circuit, to trythe numerous persons who were immured in the jails of the westerncounties. 

Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, was not deficient in talent, but was constitutionally the victim ofviolent passions. He first attracted notice as an insolent barristerat the Old Bailey Court, who had a rare tact in cross-examiningcriminals and browbeating witnesses. According to Macaulay, "impudenceand ferocity sat upon his brow, while all tenderness for the feelingsof others, all self-respect, all sense of the becoming, wereobliterated from his mind. He acquired a boundless command of therhetoric in which the vulgar express hatred and contempt. Theprofusion of his maledictions could hardly be rivalled in the FishMarket or Bear Garden. His yell of fury sounded, as one who oftenheard it said, like the thunder of the judgment day. He early becamecommon serjeant, and then recorder of London. As soon as he obtainedall the city could give, he made haste to sell his forehead of brassand his tongue of venom to the court. " He was just the man whomCharles II. Wanted as a tool. He was made chief justice of the highestcourt of criminal law in the realm, and discharged its duties entirelyto the satisfaction of a king resolved on the subjection of theEnglish nation. His violence, at all times, was frightful; but when hewas drunk, it was terrific: and he was generally intoxicated. Hisfirst exploit was the judicial murder of Algernon Sydney. On the deathof Charles, he obtained from James a peerage, and a seat in theCabinet, a signal mark of royal approbation. In prospect of yetgreater honors, he was ready to do whatever James required. Jameswished the most summary vengeance inflicted on the rebels, andJeffreys, with his tiger ferocity, was ready to execute his will. 

[Sidenote: Brutality of Jeffreys. ]

Nothing is more memorable than those "bloody assizes" which he held inthose counties through which Monmouth had passed. Nothing isremembered with more execration. Nothing ever equalled the brutalcruelty of the judge. His fury seemed to be directed with peculiarviolence upon the Dissenters. "Show me, " said he, "a Presbyterian, andI will show thee a lying knave. Presbyterianism has all manner ofvillany in it. There is not one of those lying, snivelling, cantingPresbyterians, but, one way or another, has had a hand in therebellion. " He sentenced nearly all who were accused, to be hanged orburned; and the excess of his barbarities called forth pity andindignation even from devoted loyalists. He boasted that he had hangedmore traitors than all his predecessors together since the Conquest. On a single circuit, he hanged three hundred and fifty; some of thesewere people of great worth, and many of them were innocent; while manywhom he spared from an ignominious death, were sentenced to the mostcruel punishments--to the lash of the pillory, to imprisonment in thefoulest jails, to mutilation, to banishment, and to heavy fines. 

King James watched the conduct of the inhuman Jeffreys with delight, and rewarded him with the Great Seal. The Old Bailey lawyer had nowclimbed to the greatest height to which a subject could aspire. He wasLord Chancellor of England--the confidential friend and agent of theking, and his unscrupulous instrument in imposing the yoke of bondageon an insulted nation. 

[Sidenote: Persecution of the Dissenters. ]

At this period, the condition of the Puritans was deplorable. At noprevious time was persecution more inveterate, not even under theadministration of Laud and Strafford. The persecution commenced soonafter the restoration of Charles II. , and increased in malignity untilthe elevation of Jeffreys to the chancellorship. The sufferings of noclass of sectaries bore any proportion to theirs. They found itdifficult to meet together for prayer or exhortation even in thesmallest assemblies. Their ministers were introduced in disguise. Their houses were searched. They were fined, imprisoned, and banished. Among the ministers who were deprived of their livings, were Gilpin, Bates, Howe, Owen, Baxter, Calamy, Poole, Charnock, and Flavel, whostill, after a lapse of one hundred and fifty years, enjoy awide-spread reputation as standard writers on theological subjects. These great lights of the seventeenth century were doomed to privationand poverty, with thousands of their brethren, most of whom had beeneducated at the Universities, and were among the best men in thekingdom. All the Stuart kings hated the Dissenters, but none hatedthem more than Charles II. And James II. Under their sanction, complying parliaments passed repeated acts of injustice and cruelty. The laws which were enacted during Queen Elizabeth's reign werereënacted and enforced. The Act of Uniformity, in one day, ejected twothousand ministers from their parishes, because they refused toconform to the standard of the Established Church. The Conventicle Actordained that if any person, above sixteen years of age, should bepresent at any religious meeting, in any other manner than allowed bythe Church of England, he should suffer three months' imprisonment, orpay a fine of five pounds, that six months imprisonment and ten poundsfine should be inflicted as a penalty for the second offence, andbanishment for the third. Married women taken at "conventicles, " weresentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. It is calculated thattwenty-five thousand Dissenters were immured in gloomy prisons, andthat four thousand of the sect of the Quakers died during theirimprisonment in consequence of the filth and malaria of the jails, added to cruel treatment. 

Among the illustrious men who suffered most unjustly, was RichardBaxter, the glory of the Presbyterian party. He was minister atKidderminster, where he was content to labor in an humble sphere, having refused a bishopric. He had written one hundred and forty-fivedistinct treatises, in two hundred volumes, which were characterizedfor learning and talent. But neither his age, nor piety, norcommanding virtues could screen him from the cruelties of Jeffreys;and, in fifteen years, he was five times imprisoned. His sufferingsdrew tears from Sir Matthew Hale, with whose friendship he had beenhonored. "But he who had enjoyed the confidence of the best of judges, was cruelly insulted by the worst. " When he wished to plead his cause, the drunken chief justice replied, "O Richard, Richard, thou art anold fellow and an old knave. Thou hast written books enough to load acart, every one of which is as full of sedition as an egg is full ofmeat. I know that thou hast a mighty party, and I see a great many ofthe brotherhood in corners, and a doctor of divinity at your elbow;but, by the grace of God, I will crush you all. "

Entirely a different man was John Bunyan, not so influential orlearned, but equally worthy. He belonged to the sect of the Baptists, and stands at the head of all unlettered men of genius--the mostsuccessful writer of allegory that any age has seen. The Pilgrim'sProgress is the most popular religious work ever published, full ofgenius and beauty, and a complete exhibition of the Calvinistictheology, and the experiences of the Christian life. This book showsthe triumph of genius over learning, and the people's appreciation ofexalted merit. Its author, an illiterate tinker, a travellingpreacher, who spent the best part of his life between the houses ofthe poor and the county jails, the object of reproach and ignominy, now, however, takes a proud place, in the world's estimation, with themaster minds of all nations--with Dante, Shakspeare, and Milton. Hehas arisen above the prejudices of the great and fashionable; and thelearned and aristocratic Southey has sought to be the biographer ofhis sorrows and the expounder of his visions. The proud bishops whodisdained him, the haughty judges who condemned him, are now chieflyknown as his persecutors, while he continues to be more honored andextolled with every succeeding generation. 

[Sidenote: George Fox. ]

[Sidenote: Persecution of the Quakers. ]

Another illustrious victim of religious persecution in that age, illustrious in our eyes, but ignoble in the eyes of hiscontemporaries, was George Fox, the founder of the sect of theQuakers. He, like Bunyan, was of humble birth and imperfect education. Like him, he derived his knowledge from communion with his ownsoul--from inward experiences--from religious contemplations. He was aman of vigorous intellect, and capable of intense intellectual action. His first studies were the mysteries of theology--the great questionsrespecting duty and destiny; and these agitated his earnest mindalmost to despair. In his anxiety, he sought consolation from theclergy, but they did not remove the burdens of his soul. Like an oldSyriac monk, he sought the fields and unfrequented solitudes, where hegave loose to his imagination, and where celestial beings came tocomfort him. He despised alike the reasonings of philosophers, thedogmas of divines, and the disputes of wrangling sectarians. He roseabove all their prejudices, and sought light and truth from originalsources. His peace was based on the conviction that God's Holy Spiritspoke directly to his soul; and this was above reason, aboveauthority, a surer guide than any outward or written revelation. Whilethis divine voice was above the Scriptures, it never conflicted withthem, for they were revealed also to inspired men. Hence theScriptures were not to be disdained, but were to be a guide, andliterally to be obeyed. He would not swear, or fight, to save hislife, nor to save a world, because he was directly commanded toabstain from swearing and fighting. He abhorred all principles ofexpediency, and would do right, or what the inspired voice within himassured him to be right, regardless of all consequences and alltribulations. He believed in the power of justice to protect itself, and reposed on the moral dignity of virtue. Love, to his mind, was anomnipotent weapon. He disdained force to accomplish important ends, and sought no control over government, except by intelligence. Hebelieved that ideas and truth alone were at the basis of all great andpermanent revolutions; these he was ever ready to declare; these weresure to produce, in the end, all needed reforms; these would berevealed to the earnest inquirer. He disliked all forms and pompousceremonials in the worship of God, for they seemed useless andidolatrous. God was a Spirit, and to be worshipped in spirit and intruth. And set singing was to be dispensed with, like set forms ofprayer, and only edifying as prompted by the Spirit. He even objectedto splendid places for the worship of God, and dispensed withsteeples, and bells, and organs. The sacraments, too, were needless, being mere symbols, or shadows of better things, not obligatory, butto be put on the same footing as those Jewish ceremonies which theSavior abrogated. The mind of Fox discarded all aids to devotion, alltitles of honor, all distinctions which arose in pride and egotism. Hypocrisy he abhorred with his whole soul. It was the vice of thePharisees, on whom Christ denounced the severest judgments. He, too, would denounce it with the most unsparing severity, whenever hefancied he detected it in rulers, or in venerated dignitaries of thechurch, or in the customs of conventional life. He sought simplicityand sincerity in all their forms. Truth alone should be his polarstar, and this would be revealed by the "inner light, " the peculiargenius of his whole system, which, if it led to many new views of dutyand holiness, yet was the cause of many delusions, and the parent ofconceit and spiritual pride--the grand peculiarity of fanaticism inall ages and countries. What so fruitful a source of error as thenotion of special divine illumination?

No wonder that Fox and his followers were persecuted, for they set atnought the wisdom of the world and the customs and laws of ages. Theyshocked all conservative minds; all rulers and dignitaries; all menattached to systems; all syllogistic reasoners and dialecticaltheologians; all fashionable and worldly people; all sects and partiesattached to creeds and forms. Neither their inoffensive lives, northeir doctrine of non-resistance, nor their elevated spiritualismcould screen them from the wrath of judges, bishops, and legislators. They were imprisoned, fined, whipped, and lacerated without mercy. Butthey endured their afflictions with patience, and never lost theirfaith in truth, or their trust in God. Generally, they belonged to thehumbler classes, although some men illustrious for birth and wealthjoined their persecuted ranks, the most influential of whom wasWilliam Penn, who lived to be their intercessor and protector, and theglorious founder and legislator of one of the most flourishing andvirtuous colonies that, in those days of tribulation, settled in thewilderness of North America; a colony of men who were true to theirenlightened principles, and who were saved from the murderous tomahawkof the Indian, when all other settlements were scenes of cruelty andvengeance. 

James had now suppressed rebellion; he had filled the Dissenters withfear; and he met with no resistance from his parliaments. The judgesand the bishops were ready to coöperate with his ministers in imposinga despotic yoke. All officers of the crown were dismissed the momentthey dissented from his policy, or protested against his acts. Evenjudges were removed to make way for the most unscrupulous of tools. 

[Sidenote: Despotic Power of James. ]

His power, to all appearance, was consolidated; and he now began, without disguise, to advance the two great objects which were dearestto his heart--the restoration of the Catholic religion, and theimposition of a despotic yoke. He wished to be, like Louis XIV. , adespotic and absolute prince; and, to secure this end, he was ready toviolate the constitution of his country. The three inglorious years ofhis reign were a succession of encroachments and usurpations. 

Indeed, among his first acts was the collection of the revenue withoutan act of parliament. To cover this stretch of arbitrary power, thecourt procured addresses from public bodies, in which the king wasthanked for the royal care he extended to the customs and excise. 

In order to protect the Catholics, who had been persecuted under thelast reign, he was obliged to show regard to other persecuted bodies. So he issued a warrant, releasing from confinement all who wereimprisoned for conscience' sake. Had he simply desired universaltoleration, this act would merit our highest praises; but it was soonevident that he wished to elevate the Catholics at the expense of allthe rest. James was a sincere but bigoted devotee to the Church ofRome, and all things were deemed lawful, if he could but advance theinterests of a party, to which nearly the whole nation was bitterlyopposed. Roman Catholics were proscribed by the laws. The Test Actexcluded from civil and military office all who dissented from theEstablished Church. The laws were unjust, but still they were the lawswhich James had sworn to obey. Had he scrupulously observed them, andkept his faith, there can be no doubt that they would, in good timehave been modified. 

[Sidenote: Favor Extended to Catholics. ]

But James would not wait for constitutional measures. He resolved toelevate Catholics to the highest offices of both the state and thechurch, and this in defiance of the laws and of the wishes of a greatmajority of the nation. He accordingly gave commissions to Catholicsto serve as officers in the army; he made Catholics his confidentialadvisers; he introduced Jesuits into London; he received a Papalnuncio, and he offered the livings of the Church of England to needyCatholic adventurers. He sought, by threats and artifices, to securethe repeal of the Test Act, by which Catholics were excluded fromoffice. Halifax, the ablest of his ministers, remonstrated, and he wasturned out of his employments. But he formed the soul and the centreof an opposition, which finally drove the king from his throne. Heunited with Devonshire and other Whig nobles, and their influence wassufficient to defeat many cherished objects of the king. Whenopposition appeared, however, in parliament, it was prorogued ordissolved, and the old courses of the Stuart kings were resorted to. 

[Sidenote: High Commission Court. ]

Among his various acts of infringement, which gave great scandal, evenin those degenerate times, was the abuse of the dispensing power--aprerogative he had inherited, but which had never been strictlydefined. By means of this, he intended to admit Catholics to alloffices in the realm. He began by granting to the whole Roman Catholicbody a dispensation from all the statutes which imposed penalties andtests. A general indulgence was proclaimed, and the courts of law werecompelled to acknowledge that the right of dispensing had not beeninfringed. Four of the judges refused to accede to what was plainlyillegal. They were dismissed; for, at that time, even judges heldoffice during the pleasure of the king, and not, as in these times, for life. They had not the independence which has ever been sorequisite for the bench. Nor would all his counsellors and ministersaccede to his design, and those who were refractory were turned out. As soon as a servile bench of judges recognized this outrage on theconstitution, four Catholic noblemen were admitted as privycounsellors, and some clergymen, converted to Romanism, were permittedto hold their livings. James even bestowed the deanery of ChristChurch, one of the highest dignities in the University of Oxford, on anotorious Catholic, and threatened to do at Cambridge what had beendone at Oxford. The bishopric of Oxford was bestowed upon Parker, whowas more Catholic than Protestant, and that of Chester was given to asycophant of no character. James made no secret of his intentions torestore the Catholic religion, and systematically labored to destroythe Established Church. In order to effect this, he created atribunal, which not materially differed from the celebrated HighCommission Court of Elizabeth, and to break up which was one greatobject of the revolutionists who brought Charles I. To the block--themost odious court ever established by royal despotism in England. Themembers of this High Commission Court, which James instituted to tryall ecclesiastical cases, were, with one or two exceptions, notoriously the most venal and tyrannical of all his agents--Jeffreys, the Chancellor; Crewe, Bishop of Durham; Sprat, Bishop of Rochester;the Earl of Rochester, Lord Treasurer; Sunderland, the Lord President;and Herbert, Chief Justice of the King's Bench. This court summonedCompton, the Bishop of London, to its tribunal, because he had notsuspended Dr. Sharp, one of the clergy of London, when requested to doso by the king--a man who had committed no crime, but simplydischarged his duty with fidelity. The bishop was suspended from hisspiritual functions, and the charge of his diocese was committed totwo of his judges. But this court, not content with depriving numerousclergymen of their spiritual functions, because they would not betraytheir own church, went so far as to sit in judgment on the twogreatest corporations in the land, --the Universities of Oxford andCambridge, --institutions which had ever befriended the Stuart kings intheir crimes and misfortunes. James was infatuated enough to quarrelwith these great bodies, because they would not approve of hismeasures to overturn the church with which they were connected, andwhich it was their duty and interest to uphold. The king had commandedCambridge to bestow the degree of master of arts on a Benedictinemonk, which was against the laws of the University and of parliament. The University refused to act against the law, and, in consequence, the vice-chancellor and the senate, which consisted of doctors andmasters, were summoned to the Court of High Commission. Thevice-chancellor, Pechell, was deprived of his office and emoluments, which were of the nature of freehold property. But this was not theworst act of the infatuated monarch. He insisted on imposing a RomanCatholic in the presidential chair of Magdalen College, one of therichest and most venerable of the University of Oxford, against eventhe friendly remonstrances of his best friends, even of his Catholiccounsellors, and not only against the advice of his friends, butagainst all the laws of the land and of the rights of the University;for the proposed president, Farmer, was a Catholic, and was not afellow of the college, and therefore especially disqualified. He wasalso a man of depraved morals. The fellows refused to elect Farmer, and chose John Hough instead. They were accordingly cited to theinfamous court of which Jeffreys was the presiding and controllinggenius. Their election was set aside, but Farmer was not confirmed, being too vile even for Jeffreys to sustain. 

[Sidenote: Quarrel with the Universities. ]

The king was exceedingly enraged at the opposition he received fromthe University. He resolved to visit it. On his arrival, he summonedthe fellows of Magdalen College, and commanded them to obey him in thematter of a president. They still held out in opposition, and theking, mortified and enraged, quitted Oxford to resort to boldermeasures. A special commission was instituted. Hough was forciblyejected, and the Bishop of Oxford installed, against the voice of allthe fellows but two. But the blinded king was not yet content. Thefellows were expelled from the University by a royal edict, and thehigh commissioner pronounced the ejected fellows incapable of everholding any church preferment. 

But these severities were blunders, and produced a different effectfrom what was anticipated. The nation was indignant; the Universitieslost all reverence; the clergy, in a body, were alienated; and thewhole aristocracy were filled with defiance. 

[Sidenote: Magdalen College. ]

But the king, nevertheless, for a time, prevailed against allopposition; and, now that the fellows of Magdalen College wereexpelled, he turned it into a Popish seminary, admitted in one daytwelve Roman Catholics as fellows, and appointed a Roman Catholicbishop to preside over them. This last insult was felt to theextremities of the kingdom; and bitter resentment took the place offormer loyalty. James was now regarded, by his old friends even, as atyrant, and as a man destined to destruction. And, indeed, he seemedlike one completely infatuated, bent on the ruin of that church whicheven James I. And the other Stuart kings regarded as the surest andfirmest pillar of the throne. 

The bishops of the English Church had in times past, as well as theUniversities, inculcated the doctrine of passive obedience; andoppression must be very grievous indeed which would induce them tooppose the royal will. But James had completely alienated them, andthey, reluctantly, at last, threw themselves into the ranks ofopposition. Had they remained true to him, he might still have heldhis sceptre; but it was impossible that any body of men could longerbear his injustice and tyranny. 

[Sidenote: Prosecution of the Seven Bishops. ]

From motives as impossible to fathom, as it is difficult to accountfor the actions of a madman, he ordered that the Declaration ofIndulgence, an unconstitutional act, should be read publicly from allthe pulpits in the kingdom. The London clergy, the most respectableand influential in the realm, made up their minds to disregard theorder, and the bishops sustained them in their refusal. The archbishopand six bishops accordingly signed a petition to the king, whichembodied the views of the London clergy. It was presented to thetyrant, by the prelates in a body, at his palace. He chose to considerit as a treasonable and libellous act--as nothing short of rebellion. The conduct of the prelates was generally and enthusiasticallyapproved by the nation, and especially by the Dissenters, who nowunited with the members of the Established Church. James had recentlycourted the Dissenters, not wishing to oppose too many enemies at atime. He had conferred on them many indulgences, and had elevated someof them to high positions, with the hope that they would unite withhim in breaking down the Establishment. But while some of the morefanatical were gained over, the great body were not so easilydeceived. They knew well enough that, after crushing the Church ofEngland, he would crush them. And they hated Catholicism and tyrannymore than they did Episcopacy, in spite of their many persecutions. Some of the more eminent of the Dissenters took a noble stand, andtheir conduct was fully appreciated by the Established clergy. For thefirst time, since the accession of Elizabeth, the Dissenters and theEpiscopalians treated each other with that courtesy and forbearancewhich enlightened charity demands. The fear of a common enemy unitedthem. But time, also, had, at length, removed many of their mutualasperities. 

Nothing could exceed the vexation of James when he found that not onlythe clergy had disobeyed his orders, but that the Seven Bishops weresustained by the nation. When this was discovered, he should haveyielded, as Elizabeth would have done. But he was a Stuart. He was abigoted, and self-willed, and infatuated monarch, marked out mostclearly by Providence for destruction. He resolved to prosecute thebishops for a libel, and their trial and acquittal are among the mostinteresting events of an inglorious reign. They were tried at theCourt of the King's Bench. The most eminent lawyers in the realm wereemployed as their counsel, and all the arts of tyranny were resortedto by the servile judges who tried them. But the jury rendered averdict of acquittal, and never, within man's memory, were such shoutsand tears of joy manifested by the people. Even the soldiers, whom theking had ordered to Hounslow Heath to overawe London, partook of theenthusiasm and triumph of the people. All classes were united inexpressions of joy that the tyrant for once was baffled. The king wasindeed signally defeated; but his defeat did not teach him wisdom. Itonly made him the more resolved to crush the liberties of the Church, and the liberties of the nation. But it also arrayed against him allclasses and all parties of Protestants, who now began to formalliances, and devise measures to hurl him from his throne. Even thevery courts which James had instituted to crush liberty provedrefractory. Sprat, the servile Bishop of Rochester, sent him hisresignation as one of the Lord Commissioners. The very meanness of hisspirit and laxity of his principles made his defection peculiarlyalarming, and the unblushing Jeffreys now began to tremble. The Courtof High Commission shrunk from a conflict with the Established Church, especially when its odious character was loudly denounced by allclasses in the kingdom--even by some of the agents of tyranny itself. The most unscrupulous slaves of power showed signs of uneasiness. 

[Sidenote: Tyranny and Infatuation of James. ]

But James resolved to persevere. The sanction of a parliament wasnecessary to his system, but the sanction of a free parliament it wasimpossible to obtain. He resolved to bring together, by corruption andintimidation, by violent exertions of prerogative, by fraudulentdistortions of law, an assembly which might call itself a parliament, and might be willing to register any edict he proposed. And, accordingly, every placeman, from the highest to the lowest, was madeto understand that he must support the throne or lose his office. Heset himself vigorously to pack a parliament. A committee of sevenprivy counsellors sat at Whitehall for the purpose of regulating themunicipal corporations. Father Petre was made a privy councillor. Committees, after the model of the one at Whitehall, were establishedin all parts of the realm. The lord lieutenants received writtenorders to go down to their respective counties, and superintend thework of corruption and fraud. But half of them refused to perform theignominious work, and were immediately dismissed from their posts, which were posts of great honor and consideration. Among these werethe great Earls of Oxford, Shrewsbury, Dorset, Pembroke, Rutland, Bridgewater, Thanet, Northampton, Abingdon, and Gainsborough, whosefamilies were of high antiquity, wealth, and political influence. Norcould those nobles, who consented to conform to the wishes and ordersof the king, make any progress in their counties, on account of thegeneral opposition of the gentry. The county squires, as a body, stoodout in fierce resistance. They refused to send up any men toparliament who would vote away the liberties and interests of thenation. The justices and deputy lieutenants declared that they wouldsustain, at all hazard, the Protestant religion. And these personswere not odious republicans, but zealous royalists, now firmly unitedand resolved to oppose unlawful acts, though commanded by the king. 

James and his ministers next resolved to take away the power of themunicipal corporations. The boroughs were required to surrender theircharters. But a great majority firmly refused to part with theirprivileges. They were prosecuted and intimidated, but still they heldout. Oxford, by a vote of eighty to two, voted to defend itsfranchises. Other towns did the same. Meanwhile, all the publicdepartments were subjected to a strict inquisition, and all, who wouldnot support the policy of the king, were turned out of office, andamong them were some who had been heretofore the zealous servants ofthe crown. 

[Sidenote: Organized Opposition. ]

It was now full time for the organization of a powerful confederacyagainst the king. It was obvious, to men of all parties, and allranks, that he meditated the complete subversion of English liberties. The fundamental laws of the kingdom had been systematically violated. The power of dispensing with acts of parliament had been strained, sothat the king had usurped nearly all legislative authority. The courtsof justice had been filled with unscrupulous judges, who were ready toobey all the king's injunctions, whether legal or illegal. RomanCatholics had been elevated to places of dignity in the EstablishedChurch. An infamous and tyrannical Court of High Commission had beencreated; persons, who could not legally set foot in England, had beenplaced at the head of colleges, and had taken their seat at the royalcouncil-board. Lord lieutenants of counties, and other servants of thecrown, had been dismissed for refusing to obey illegal commands; thefranchises of almost every borough had been invaded; the courts ofjustice were venal and corrupt; an army of Irish Catholics, whom thenation abhorred, had been brought over to England; even the sacredright of petition was disregarded, and respectful petitioners weretreated as criminals; and a free parliament was prevented fromassembling. 

Under such circumstances, and in view of these unquestioned facts, agreat conspiracy was set on foot to dethrone the king and overturn thehateful dynasty. 

Among the conspirators were some of the English nobles, the chief ofwhom was the Earl of Devonshire, and one of the leaders of the Whigparty. Shrewsbury and Danby also joined them, the latter noblemanhaving been one of the most zealous advocates of the doctrine ofpassive obedience which many of the High Churchmen and Tories haddefended in the reign of Charles II. It was under his administration, as prime minister, that a law had been proposed to parliament toexclude all persons from office who refused to take an oath, declaringthat they thought resistance in all cases unlawful. Compton, theBishop of London, who had been insolently treated by the court, joinedthe conspirators, whose designs were communicated to the Prince ofOrange by Edward Russell and Henry Sydney, brothers of those two greatpolitical martyrs who had been executed in the last reign. The Princeof Orange, who had married a daughter of James II. , agreed to invadeEngland with a well-appointed army. 

[Sidenote: William, Prince of Orange. ]

William of Orange was doubtless the greatest statesman and warrior ofhis age, and one of the ablest men who ever wore a crown. He was atthe head of the great Protestant party in Europe, and was theinveterate foe of Louis XIV. When a youth, his country had beeninvaded by Louis, and desolated and abandoned to pillage and cruelty. It was amid unexampled calamities, when the population were everywhere flying before triumphant armies, and the dikes of Holland hadbeen opened for the ravages of the sea in order to avoid the morecruel ravages of war, that William was called to be at the head ofaffairs. He had scarcely emerged from boyhood; but his boyhood waspassed in scenes of danger and trial, and his extraordinary talentswere most precociously developed. His tastes were warlike; but he wasa warrior who fought, not for the love of fighting, not for militaryglory, but to rescue his country from a degrading yoke, and to securethe liberties of Europe from the encroachments of a most ambitiousmonarch. Zeal for those liberties was the animating principle of hisexistence; and this led him to oppose so perseveringly the policy andenterprises of the French king, even to the disadvantage of his nativecountry and the country which adopted him. 

William was ambitious, and did not disdain the overtures which thediscontented nobles of England made to him. Besides, his wife, thePrincess Mary, was presumptive heir to the crown before the birth ofthe Prince of Wales. The eyes of the English nation had long beenfixed upon him as their deliverer from the tyranny of James. He was asincere Protestant, a bold and enterprising genius, and a consummatestatesman. But he delayed taking any decisive measures until affairswere ripe for his projects--until the misgovernment and encroachmentsof James drove the nation to the borders of frenzy. He then obtainedthe consent of the States General for the meditated invasion ofEngland, and made immense preparations, which, however, were carefullyconcealed from the spies and agents of James. They did not escape, however, the scrutinizing and jealous eye of Louis XIV. , whoremonstrated with James on his blindness and self-confidence, andoffered to lend him assistance. But the infatuated monarch would notbelieve his danger, and rejected the proffered aid of Louis with aspirit which ill accorded with his former servility and dependence. Nor was he aroused to a sense of his danger until the Declaration ofWilliam appeared, setting forth the tyrannical acts of James, andsupposed to be written by Bishop Burnet, the intimate friend of thePrince of Orange. Then he made haste to fit out a fleet; and thirtyships of the line were put under the command of Lord Dartmouth. Anarmy of forty thousand men--the largest that any king of England hadever commanded--was also sent to the seaboard; a force more thansufficient to repel a Dutch invasion. 

[Sidenote: Critical Condition of James. ]

At the same time, the king made great concessions. He abolished theCourt of High Commission. He restored the charter of the city ofLondon. He permitted the Bishop of Winchester, as visitor of MagdalenCollege, to make any reforms he pleased. He would not, however, partwith an iota of his dispensing power, and still hoped to rout William, and change the religion of his country. But all his concessions weretoo late. Whigs and Tories, Dissenters and Churchmen, were ready towelcome their Dutch deliverer. Nor had James any friends on whom hecould rely. His prime minister, Sunderland, was in treaty with theconspirators, and waiting to betray him. Churchill, who held one ofthe highest commissions in the army, and who was under greatobligations to the king, was ready to join the standard of William. Jeffreys, the lord chancellor, was indeed true in his allegiance, buthis crimes were past all forgiveness by the nation; and even had herebelled, --and he was base enough to do so, --his services would havebeen spurned by William and all his adherents. 

[Sidenote: Invasion of England by William. ]

On the 29th of October, 1688, the armament of William put to sea; butthe ships had scarcely gained half the distance to England when theywere dispersed and driven back to Holland by a violent tempest. Thehopes of James revived; but they were soon dissipated. The fleet ofWilliam, on the 1st of November, again put to sea. It was composed ofmore than six hundred vessels, five hundred of which were men of war, and they were favored by auspicious gales. The same winds whichfavored the Dutch ships retarded the fleet of Dartmouth. On the 5th ofNovember, the troops of William disembarked at Brixham, near Torbay inDevonshire, without opposition. On the 6th, he advanced to NewtonAbbot, and, on the 9th, reached Exeter. He was cordially received, andmagnificently entertained. He and his lieutenant-general, MarshalSchomberg, one of the greatest commanders in Europe, entered Exetertogether in the grand military procession, which was like a Romantriumph. Near him also was Bentinck, his intimate friend andcounsellor, the founder of a great ducal family. The processionmarched to the splendid Cathedral, the _Te Deum_ was sung, and Burnetpreached a sermon. 

Thus far all things had been favorable, and William was fairlyestablished on English ground. Still his affairs were precarious, andJames's condition not utterly hopeless or desperate. In spite of theunpopularity of the king, his numerous encroachments, and hisdisaffected army, the enterprise of William was hazardous. He was aninvader, and the slightest repulse would have been dangerous to hisinterests. James was yet a king, and had the control of the army, thenavy, and the treasury. He was a legitimate king, whose claims wereundisputed. And he was the father of a son, and that son, notwithstanding the efforts of the Protestants to represent him as afalse heir, was indeed the Prince of Wales. William had no claim tothe throne so long as that prince was living. Nor had the nobles andgentry flocked to his standard as he had anticipated. It was nearly aweek before a single person of rank or consequence joined him. Devonshire was in Derbyshire, and Churchill had still the confidenceof his sovereign. The forces of the king were greatly superior to hisown. And James had it in his power to make concessions which wouldhave satisfied a great part of the nation. 

But William had not miscalculated. He had profoundly studied thecharacter of James, and the temper of the English. He knew that afatal blindness and obstinacy had been sent upon him, and that henever would relinquish his darling scheme of changing the religion ofthe nation; and he knew that the nation would never acquiesce in thatchange; that Popery was hateful in their sight. He also trusted to hisown good sword, and to fortunate circumstances. 

[Sidenote: Flight of the King. ]

And he was not long doomed to suspense, which is generally sodifficult to bear. In a few days, Lord Cornbury, colonel of aregiment, and son of the Earl of Clarendon, and therefore a relativeof James himself, deserted. Soon several disaffected nobles joined himin Exeter. Churchill soon followed, the first general officer thatever in England abandoned his colors. The Earl of Bath, who commandedat Plymouth, placed himself, in a few days, at the prince's disposal, with the fortress which he was intrusted to guard. His army swelled innumbers and importance. Devonshire raised the standard of rebellion atChatsworth. London was in a ferment. James was with his army atSalisbury, but gave the order to retreat, not daring to face thegreatest captain in Europe. Soon after, he sent away the queen and thePrince of Wales to France, and made preparations for his ownignominious flight--the very thing his enemies desired, for his lifewas in no danger, and his affairs even then might have beencompromised, in spite of the rapid defection of his friends, and theadvance of William, with daily augmenting forces, upon London. On the11th of December, the king fled from London, with the intention ofembarking at Sheerness, and was detained by the fishermen of thecoast; but, by an order from the Lords, was set at liberty, andreturned to the capital. William, nearly at the same time, reachedLondon, and took up his quarters at St. James's Palace. It is needlessto add, that the population of the city were friendly to his cause, and that he was now virtually the king of England. It is asatisfaction also to add, that the most infamous instrument of royaltyranny was seized in the act of flight, at Wapping, in the meandisguise of a sailor. He was discovered by the horrible fierceness ofhis countenance. Jeffreys was committed to the Tower; and the Towerscreened him from a worse calamity, for the mob would have torn him inpieces. Catholic priests were also arrested, and their chapels andhouses destroyed. 

Meanwhile parliament assembled and deliberated on the state ofaffairs. Many propositions were made and rejected. The king fled asecond time, and the throne was declared vacant. But the crown was notimmediately offered to the Prince of Orange, although addresses weremade to him as a national benefactor. Many were in favor of a regency. Another party was for placing the Princess Mary on the throne, andgiving to William, during her life, the title of king, and such ashare of the administration as she chose to give him. 

But William had risked every thing for a throne, and nothing less thanthe crown of England would now content him. He gave the convention tounderstand that, much as he esteemed his wife, he would never accept asubordinate and precarious place in her government; "that he would notsubmit to be tied to the apron-strings of the best of wives;" that, unless he were offered the crown for life, he should return toHolland. 

It was accordingly settled by parliament that he should hold the regaldignity conjointly with his wife, but that the whole power of thegovernment should be placed in his hands. And the Princess Marywillingly acceded, being devoted to her husband, and unambitious forherself. 

[Sidenote: Consummation of the Revolution. ]

[Sidenote: Declaration of Rights. ]

Thus was consummated the English Revolution of 1688, bloodless, butglorious. A tyrant was ejected from an absolute throne, and a nobleand magnanimous prince reigned in his stead, after having taken anoath to observe the laws of the realm--an oath which he neverviolated. Of all revolutions, this proved the most beneficent. Itclosed the long struggle of one hundred and fifty years. Royalprerogative bowed before the will of the people, and true religiousand civil liberty commenced its reign. The Prince of Orange was calledto the throne by the voice of the nation, as set forth in aninstrument known as the Declaration of Rights. This celebrated act ofsettlement recapitulated the crimes and errors of James, and merelyasserted the ancient rights and liberties of England--that thedispensing power had no legal existence; that no money could be raisedwithout grant of parliament; and that no army could be kept up in timeof peace without its consent; and it also asserted the right ofpetition, the right of electors to choose their representativesfreely, the right of parliament to freedom of debate, and the right ofthe nation to a pure and merciful administration of justice. No newrights were put forth, but simply the old ones were reëstablished. William accepted the crown on the conditions proposed, and swore torule by the laws. "Not a single flower of the crown, " says Macaulay, "was touched. Not a single new right was given to the people. TheDeclaration of Rights, although it made nothing law which was not lawbefore, contained the germ of the law which gave religious freedom tothe Dissenters; of the law which secured the independence of judges;of the law which limited the duration of parliaments; of the law whichplaced the liberty of the press under the protection of juries; of thelaw which abolished the sacramental test; of the law which relievedthe Roman Catholics from civil disabilities; of the law which reformedthe representative system; of every good law which has been passedduring one hundred and sixty years; of every good law which mayhereafter, in the course of ages, be found necessary to promote thepublic weal, and satisfy the demands of public opinion. "

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Macaulay's, Hume's, Hallam's, and Lingard's Histories of England. Mackintosh's Causes of the Revolution of 1688. Fox's History of the Reign of James--a beautiful fragment. Burnet's History of his Own Times. Neal's History of the Puritans. Life and Times of Richard Baxter. Southey's Life of Bunyan. Memoir of George Fox, by Marsh. Life of William Penn. Chapters on religion, science, and the condition of the people, in the Pictorial History of England. Russell's Modern Europe. Woolrych's Life of Judge Jeffreys. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

LOUIS XIV. 

[Sidenote: Louis XIV. ]

We turn now from English affairs to contemplate the reign ofLouis XIV. --a man who filled a very large space in the history ofEurope during the seventeenth century. Indeed, his reign forms anepoch of itself, not so much from any impulse he gave to liberty orcivilization, but because, for more than half a century, he was thecentral mover of European politics. His reign commemorates the triumphin France, of despotic principles, the complete suppression of popularinterests, and almost the absorption of national interests in his ownpersonal aggrandizement. It commemorates the ascendency of fashion, and the great refinement of material life. The camp and the court ofLouis XIV. Ingulphed all that is interesting in the history of Franceduring the greater part of the seventeenth century. He reignedseventy-two years, and, in his various wars, a million of men aresupposed to have fallen victims to his vain-glorious ambition. Hispalaces consumed the treasures which his wars spared. He was viewed asa sun of glory and power, in the light of which all other lights weredim. Philosophers, poets, prelates, generals, and statesmen, duringhis reign, were regarded only as his satellites. He was the centralorb around which every other light revolved, and to contribute to hisglory all were supposed to be born. He was, most emphatically, thestate. He was France. A man, therefore, who, in the eye ofcontemporaries, was so grand, so rich, so powerful, and so absolute, claims a special notice. It is the province of history to record greatinfluences, whether they come from the people, from great popularideas, from literature and science, or from a single man. The lives ofindividuals are comparatively insignificant in the history of theUnited States; but the lives of such men as Cæsar, Cromwell, andNapoleon, furnish very great subjects for the pen of the philosophicalhistorian, since great controlling influences emanated from them, rather than from the people whom they ruled. 

[Sidenote: His Power and Resources. ]

Louis XIV. Was not a great general, like Henry IV. , nor a greatstatesman, like William III. , nor a philosopher, like Frederic theGreat, nor a universal genius, like Napoleon; but his reign filled theeyes of contemporaries, and circumstances combined to make him theabsolute master of a great empire. Moreover, he had sufficient talentand ambition to make use of fortunate opportunities, and of theresources of his kingdom, for his own aggrandizement. But France, nevertheless, was sacrificed. The French Revolution was as much theeffect of his vanity and egotism, as his own power was the fruit ofthe policy of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin. By their labors in thecause of absolutism, he came in possession of armies and treasures. But armies and treasures were expended in objects of vain ambition, for the gratification of selfish pleasures, for expensive pageants, and for gorgeous palaces. These finally embarrassed the nation, andground it down to the earth by the load of taxation, and maddened itby the prospect of ruin, by the poverty and degradation of the people, and, at the same time, by the extravagance and insolence of anoverbearing aristocracy. The aristocracy formed the glory and pride ofthe throne and both nobles and the throne fell, and great was the fallthereof. 

Our notice of Louis XIV. Begins, not with his birth, but at the timewhen he resolved to be his own prime minister, on the death ofCardinal Mazarin, (1661. )

Louis XIV. Was then twenty-three years of age--frank, beautiful, imperious, and ambitious. His education had been neglected, but hispride and selfishness had been stimulated. During his minority, he hadbeen straitened for money by the avaricious cardinal; but avariciousfor his youthful master, since, at his death, besides his privatefortune, which amounted to two hundred millions of livres, he leftfifteen millions of livres, not specified in his will, which, ofcourse, the king seized, and thus became the richest monarch ofEurope. He was married, shortly before the death of Mazarin, to theInfanta Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV. , King of Spain. But, long before his marriage, he had become attached to Mary de Mancini, niece of Mazarin, who returned his love with passionate ardor. Sheafterwards married Prince Colonna, a Roman noble, and lived a mostabandoned life. 

The enormous wealth left by Cardinal Mazarin was, doubtless, onemotive which induced Louis XIV. , though only a young man oftwenty-three, to be his own prime minister. Henceforth, to his death, all his ministers made their regular reports to him, and none werepermitted to go beyond the limits which he prescribed to them. 

He accepted, at first, the ministers whom the dying cardinal hadrecommended. The most prominent of these were Le Tellier, De Lionne, and Fouquet. The last was intrusted with the public chest, who foundthe means to supply the dissipated young monarch with all the money hedesired for the indulgence of his expensive tastes and ruinouspleasures. 

[Sidenote: Habits and Pleasures of Louis. ]

The thoughts and time of the king, from the death of Mazarin, for sixor seven years, were chiefly occupied with his pleasures. It was thenthat the court of France was so debauched, splendid, and far-famed. Itwas during this time that the king was ruled by La Vallière, one ofthe most noted of all his favorites, a woman of considerable beautyand taste, and not so unprincipled as royal favorites generally havebeen. She was created a duchess, and her children were legitimatized, and also became dukes and princes. Of these the king was very fond, and his love for them survived the love for their unfortunate mother, who, though beautiful and affectionate, was not sufficientlyintellectual to retain the affections with which she inspired the mostselfish monarch of his age. She was supplanted in the king'saffections by Madame de Montespan, an imperious beauty, whoseextravagances and follies shocked and astonished even the mostlicentious court in Europe; and La Vallière, broken-hearted, disconsolate, and mortified, sought the shelter of a Carmeliteconvent, in which she dragged out thirty-six melancholy and drearyyears, amid the most rigorous severities of self-inflicted penance, inthe anxious hope of that heavenly mansion where her sins would be nolonger remembered, and where the weary would be at rest. 

It was during these years of extravagance and pleasure that Versaillesattracted the admiring gaze of Christendom, the most gorgeous palacewhich the world has seen since the fall of Babylon. Amid its gardensand groves, its parks and marble halls, did the modern Nebuchadnezzarrevel in a pomp and grandeur unparalleled in the history of Europe, surrounded by eminent prelates, poets, philosophers, and statesmen, and all that rank and beauty had ennobled throughout his vastdominions. Intoxicated by their united flatteries, by all the incensewhich sycophancy, carried to a science, could burn before him, healmost fancied himself a deity, and gave no bounds to hisself-indulgence, his vanity, and his pride. Every thing wassubordinate to his pleasure and his egotism--an egotism alikeregardless of the tears of discarded favorites, and the groans of hisoverburdened subjects. 

[Sidenote: His Military Ambition. ]

But Louis, at last, palled with pleasure, was aroused from thefestivities of Versailles by dreams of military ambition. He knewnothing of war, of its dangers, its reverses, or of its ruinousexpenses; but he fancied it would be a beautiful sport for a wealthyand absolute monarch to engage in the costly game. He cast his eyes onHolland, a state extremely weak in land forces, and resolved to add itto the great kingdom over which he ruled. 

The only power capable of rendering effectual assistance to Holland, when menaced by Louis XIV. , was England; but England was ruled byCharles II. , and all he cared for were his pleasures and independencefrom parliamentary control. The French king easily induced him tobreak his alliance with the Dutch by a timely bribe, while, at thesame time, he insured the neutrality of Spain, by inflaming thehereditary prejudices of the Spanish court against the Low Countries. 

War, therefore, without even a decent pretence, and withoutprovocation, was declared against Holland, with a view of annexing theLow Countries to France. 

Before the Dutch were able to prepare for resistance, Louis XIV. Appeared on the banks of the Rhine with an army of one hundred andtwenty thousand, marshalled by such able generals as Luxembourg, Condé, and Turenne. The king commanded in person, and with all thepomp of an ancient Persian monarch, surrounded with women and nobles. Without any adequate force to resist him, his march could not but betriumphant. He crossed the Rhine, --an exploit much celebrated, by hisflatterers, though nothing at all extraordinary, --and, in the courseof a few weeks, nearly all the United Provinces had surrendered to theroyal victor. The reduction of Holland and Zealand alone was necessaryto crown his enterprise with complete success. But he wasted time invain parade at Utrecht, where he held his court, and where hissplendid army revelled in pleasure and pomp. Amsterdam alone, amid thegeneral despondency and consternation which the French inundationproduced, was true to herself, and to the liberties of Holland; andthis was chiefly by means of the gallant efforts of the Prince ofOrange. 

[Sidenote: William, Prince of Orange. ]

At this time, (1672, ) he was twenty-two years of age, and had receivedan excellent education, and shown considerable military abilities. Inconsequence of his precocity of talent, his unquestioned patriotism, and the great services which his family had rendered to the state, hewas appointed commander-in-chief of the forces of the republic, andwas encouraged to aspire to the office of stadtholder, the highest inthe commonwealth. And his power was much increased after the massacreof the De Witts--the innocent victims of popular jealousy, who, thoughpatriotic and illustrious, inclined to a different policy than whatthe Orange party advocated. William advised the States to reject withscorn the humiliating terms of peace which Louis XIV. Offered, and tomake any sacrifice in defence of their very last ditch. The heroicspirit which animated his bosom he communicated to his countrymen, onthe borders of despair, and in the prospect of national ruin; and sogreat was the popular enthusiasm, that preparations were made forfifty thousand families to fly to the Dutch possessions in the EastIndies, and establish there a new empire, in case they wereoverwhelmed by their triumphant enemy. 

Never, in the history of war, were such energies put forth as by theHollanders in the hour of their extremity. They opened their dikes, and overflowed their villages and their farms. They rallied around thestandard of their heroic leader, who, with twenty-two thousand men, kept the vast armies of Condé and Turenne at bay. Providence, too, assisted men who were willing to help themselves. The fleets of theirenemies were dispersed by storms, and their armies were driven back bythe timely inundation. 

The heroism of William called forth universal admiration. Louisattempted to bribe him, and offered him the sovereignty of Holland, which offer he unhesitatingly rejected. He had seen the lowest pointin the depression of his country, and was confident of ultimatesuccess. 

The resistance of Holland was unexpected, and Louis, wearied with thecampaign, retired to Versailles, to be fed with the incense of hisflatterers, and to publish the manifestoes of his glory and success. 

The states of Europe, jealous of the encroachments of Louis, at lastresolved to come to the assistance of the struggling republic ofHolland. Charles II. Ingloriously sided with the great despot ofEurope; but the Emperor of Germany, the Elector of Brandenburg, andthe King of Spain declared war against France. Moreover, the Dutchgained some signal naval battles. The celebrated admirals De Ruyterand Van Tromp redeemed the ancient glories of the Dutch flag. TheFrench were nearly driven out of Holland; and Charles II. , in spite ofhis secret treaties with Louis, was compelled to make peace with thelittle state which had hitherto defied him in the plenitude of hispower. 

[Sidenote: Second Invasion of Holland. ]

But the ambitious King of France was determined not to be baffled inhis scheme, since he had all the mighty resources of his kingdom athis entire disposal, and was burning with the passion of militaryaggrandizement. So he recommenced preparations for the conquest ofHolland on a greater scale than ever, and assembled four immensearmies. Condé led one against Flanders, and fought a bloody butindecisive battle with the Prince of Orange, in which twelve thousandmen were killed on each side. Turenne commanded another on the side ofGermany, and possessed himself of the Palatinate, gained severalbrilliant successes, but disgraced them by needless cruelties. Manheim, and numerous towns and villages, were burnt, and the countrylaid waste and desolate. The elector was so overcome with indignation, that he challenged the French general to single combat, which thegreat marshal declined. 

Louis himself headed a third army, and invaded Franche Comté, which hesubdued in six weeks. The fourth army was sent to the frontiers ofRoussillon, but effected nothing of importance. 

[Sidenote: Dutch War. ]

This great war was prosecuted for four years longer, in which thecontending parties obtained various success. The only decisive effectof the contest was to reduce the strength of all the contendingpowers. Some great battles were fought, but Holland still held outwith inferior forces. Louis lost the great Turenne, who was killed onthe eve of a battle with the celebrated Montecuculi, who commanded theGerman armies; but, in a succeeding campaign, this loss wascompensated by the surrender of Valenciennes, by the victories ofLuxembourg over the Prince of Orange, and by another treaty of peacewith Charles II. 

At last, all the contending parties were exhausted, and Louis waswilling to make terms of peace. He had not reduced Holland, but, onaccount of his vast resources, he had obtained considerableadvantages. The treaty of Nimeguen, in 1678, secured to him FrancheComté, which he had twice conquered, and several important cities andfortresses in Flanders. He considerably extended his dominions, inspite of a powerful confederacy, and only retreated from the field oftriumph to meditate more gigantic enterprises. 

For nine years, Europe enjoyed a respite from the horrors of war, during which Louis XIV. Acted like a universal monarch. During thesenine years, he indulged in his passion of palace building, andsurrounded himself with every pleasure which could intoxicate a mindon which, already, had been exhausted all the arts of flattery, andall the resources of wealth. 

The man to whom Louis was most indebted for the means to prosecute hisvictories and build his palaces, was Colbert, minister of finance, whosucceeded Fouquet. France was indebted to this able and patrioticminister for her richest manufactures of silks, laces, tapestries, andcarpets, and for various internal improvements. He founded the Gobelintapestries; erected the Royal Library, the colonnade of the Louvre, the Royal Observatory, the Hotel of the Invalids, and the palaces ofthe Tuileries, Vincennes, Meudon, and Versailles. He encouraged allforms of industry, and protected the Huguenots. But his great serviceswere not fully appreciated by the king, and he was obnoxious to thenobility, who envied his eminence, and to the people, because hedesired the prosperity of France more than the gratification of theirpleasures. He was succeeded by Louvois, who long retained a greatascendency by obsequious attention to all the king's wishes. 

[Sidenote: Madame Montespan. ]

At this period, the reigning favorite at court was Madame deMontespan--the most infamous and unprincipled, but most witty andbrilliant of all the king's mistresses, and the haughtiest woman ofher age. Her tastes were expensive, and her habits extravagant andluxurious. On her the sovereign showered diamonds and rubies. He couldrefuse her nothing. She received so much from him, that she couldafford to endow a convent--the mere building of which cost one millioneight hundred thousand livres. Her children were legitimatized, anddeclared princes of the blood. Through her the royal favors flowed. Ambassadors, ministers, and even prelates, paid their court to her. Onher the reproofs of Bossuet fell without effect. Secure in herascendency over the mind of Louis, she triumphed over his court, andinsulted the nation. But, at last, he grew weary of her, although sheremained at court eighteen years, and she was dismissed fromVersailles, on a pension of a sum equal to six hundred thousanddollars a year. She lived twenty-two years after her exile from court, and in great splendor, sometimes hoping to regain the ascendency shehad once enjoyed, and at others in those rigorous penances which herchurch inflicts as the expiation for sin. To the last, however, shewas haughty and imperious, and kept up the vain etiquette of a court. Her husband, whom she had abandoned, and to whom, after her disgrace, she sought to be reconciled, never would hear her name mentioned; andthe king, whom, for nearly twenty years, she had enthralled, heard ofher death with indifference, as he was starting for a huntingexcursion. "Ah, indeed, " said Louis XIV. , "so the marchioness is dead!I should have thought that she would have lasted longer. Are youready, M. De la Rochefoucauld? I have no doubt that, after this lastshower, the scent will lie well for the dogs. Let us be off at once. "

[Sidenote: Madame de Maintenon. ]

As the Marchioness de Montespan lost her power over the royal egotist, Madame de Maintenon gained hers. She was the wife of the poet Scarron, and was first known to the king as the governess of the children ofMontespan. She was an estimable woman on the whole, very intellectual, very proper, very artful, and very ambitious. No person ever had sogreat an influence over Louis XIV. As she; and hers was the ascendencyof a strong mind over a weak one. She endeavored to make peace atcourt, and to dissuade the king from those vices to which he had solong been addicted. And she partially reclaimed him, although, whileher counsels were still regarded, Louis was enslaved by Madame deFontanges--a luxurious beauty, whom he made a duchess, and on whom hesquandered the revenues of a province. But her reign was short. Merephysical charms must soon yield to the superior power of intellect andwit, and, after her death, the reign of Madame de Maintenon wascomplete. As the king could not live without her, and as she refusedto follow the footsteps of her predecessors, the king made her hiswife. And she was worthy of his choice; and her influence was, on thewhole, good, although she befriended the Jesuits, and prompted theking to many acts of religious intolerance. It was chiefly through herinfluence, added to that of the Jesuits, that the king revoked theedict of Nantes, and its revocation was attended by great sufferingsand privations among the persecuted Huguenots. He had, on ascendingthe throne, in 1643, confirmed the privileges of the Protestants; but, gradually, he worried them by exactions and restraints, and, finally, in 1685, by the revocation of the edict which Henry IV. Had passed, hewithdrew his protection, and subjected them to a more bitterpersecution than at any preceding period. All the Protestant ministerswere banished, or sent to the galleys, and the children of Protestantswere taken from their parents, and committed to the care of theirnearest Catholic relations, or such persons as judges appointed. Allthe terrors of military execution, all the artifices of priestcraft, were put forth to make converts and such as relapsed were subjected tocruel torments. A twentieth part of them were executed, and theremainder hunted from place to place. By these cruelties, France wasdeprived of nearly six hundred thousand of the best people in theland--a great misfortune, since they contributed, in their dispersionand exile, to enrich, by their agriculture and manufactures, thecountries to which they fled. 

From this period of his reign to his death, Louis XIV. Was a religiousbigot, and the interests of the Roman Church, next to the triumph ofabsolutism, became the great desire of his life. He was punctual andrigid in the outward ceremonials of his religion, and professed toregret the follies and vices of his early life. Through the influenceof his confessor, the Jesuit La Chaise, and his wife, Madame deMaintenon, he sent away Montespan from his court, and discouragedthose gayeties for which it had once been distinguished. But he wasalways fond of ceremony of all kinds, and the etiquette of his courtwas most irksome and oppressive, and wearied Madame de Maintenonherself, and caused her to exclaim, in a letter to her brother, "Savethose who fill the highest stations, I know of none more unfortunatethan those who envy them. "

The favorite minister of the king at this time was Louvois, a veryable but extremely prodigal man, who plunged Louis XIV. Intoinnumerable expenses, and encouraged his taste both for palaces andwar. It was probably through his intrigues, in order to make himselfnecessary to the king, that a general war again broke out in Europe. 

[Sidenote: League of Augsburg. ]

In 1687 was formed the famous League of Augsburg, by which the leadingprinces of Europe united in a great confederacy to suppress the powerand encroachments of the French king. Louvois intrigued to secure theelection of the Cardinal de Furstemberg to the archbishopric ofCologne, in opposition to the interests of Bavaria, the natural allyof France, conscious that, by so doing, he must provoke hostilities. But this act was only the occasion, not the cause, of war. Louis hadenraged the Protestant world by his persecution of the Huguenots. Hehad insulted even the pope himself by sending an ambassador to Rome, with guards and armed attendants equal to an army, in order to enforcesome privileges which it was not for the interest or the dignity ofthe pope to grant; he had encouraged the invasion of Germany by theTurks; he had seized Strasburg, the capital of Alsace; he bombardedGenoa, because they sold powder to the Algerines, and compelled thedoge to visit him as a suppliant; he laid siege to some cities whichbelonged to Spain; and he prepared to annex the Low Countries to hisdominions. Indeed, he treated all other powers as if he were theabsolute monarch of Europe, and fear and jealousy united them againstthem. Germany, Spain, and Holland, and afterwards England, Denmark, Sweden, and Savoy, coöperated together to crush the common enemy ofEuropean liberties. 

Louis made enormous exertions to resist this powerful confederacy. Four hundred thousand men were sent into the field, divided into fourarmies. Two of these were sent into Flanders, one into Catalonia, andone into Germany, which laid waste the Palatinate with fire and sword. Louvois gave the order, and Louis sanctioned it, which was executedwith such unsparing cruelty that all Europe was filled withindignation and defiance. 

[Sidenote: Opposing Armies and Generals. ]

The forces of Louis were immense, but those of the allies weregreater. The Spaniards, Dutch, and English, had an army of fiftythousand men in Flanders, eleven thousand of whom were commanded bythe Earl of Marlborough. The Germans sent three more armies into thefield; one commanded by the Elector of Bavaria, on the Upper Rhine;another by the Duke of Lorraine, on the Middle Rhine; and a third bythe Elector of Brandenburg, on the Lower Rhine; and these, in thefirst campaign, obtained signal successes. The next year, the Duke ofSavoy joined the allies, whose army was commanded by Victor Amadeus;but he was beaten by Marshal Catinat, one of the most distinguished ofthe French generals. Luxembourg also was successful in Flanders, andgained the great battle of Charleroi over the Germans and Dutch: Thecombined fleet of the English and Dutch was also defeated by theFrench at the battle of Beachy Head. In the next campaign, PrinceEugene and the Duke of Schomberg distinguished themselves in checkingthe victorious career of Catinat; but nothing of importance waseffected. The following spring, William III. And Louis XIV. , the twogreat heads of the contending parties, took the field themselves; andLouis, with the aid of Luxembourg, took Namur, in spite of the effortsof William to succor it. Some other successes were gained by theFrench, and Louis retired to Versailles to celebrate the victories ofhis generals. The next campaign witnessed another splendid victoryover William and the allies, by Luxembourg, at Neerwinden, when twelvethousand men were killed; and also another, by Catinat, at Marsaglia, in Italy, over the Duke of Savoy. The military glory of Louis was nowat its height; but, in the campaign of 1694-95, he met with greatreverses. Luxembourg, the greatest of his generals, died. The alliesretook Huy and Namur, and the French king, exhausted by the long war, was forced to make peace. The treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, secured thetranquillity of Europe for four years--long enough only for thecontending parties to recover their energies, and prepare for a moredesperate contest. Louis XIV. , however, now acted on the defensive. The allied powers were resolved on his complete humiliation. 

[Sidenote: War of the Spanish Succession. ]

War broke out again in 1701, and in consequence of the accession ofPhilip V. , grandson of Louis XIV. , to the throne of Spain. This greatwar of the Spanish Succession, during which Marlborough so greatlydistinguished himself, claims a few explanatory remarks. 

Charles II. , King of Spain, and the last of the line of the Austrianprinces, being without an heir, and about to die, selected as hissuccessor Leopold of Bavaria, a boy five years of age, whosegrandmother was Maria Theresa. But there were also two otherclaimants--the Duke of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV. , whose claimrested in being the grandson of Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV. , and sister of Charles II. , and the Emperor of Germany, whose motherwas the daughter of Philip III. The various European states lookedwith extreme jealousy on the claims of the Emperor of Germany and theDuke of Anjou, because they feared that the balance of power would beseriously disturbed if either an Austrian or a Bourbon prince becameKing of Spain. They, therefore, generally supported the claims of theBavarian prince, especially England and Holland. 

But the Prince of Bavaria suddenly died, as it was supposed by poison, and Louis XIV. So successfully intrigued, that his grandson wasnominated by the Spanish monarch as heir to his throne. This incensedLeopold II. Of Germany, and especially William III. , who was resolvedthat the house of Bourbon should be no further aggrandized. 

On the accession of the Duke of Anjou to the Spanish throne, in 1701, a grand alliance was formed, headed by the Emperor of Germany and theKing of England, to dethrone him. Louis XIV. Long hesitated betweenhis ambition and the interests of his kingdom; but ambition triumphed. He well knew that he could only secure a crown to his grandson by adesperate contest with indignant Europe. Austria, Holland, Savoy, andEngland were arrayed against France. And this war of the SpanishSuccession was the longest, the bloodiest, and the most disastrous warin which Louis was ever engaged. It commenced the last year of thereign of William III. , and lasted thirteen years. 

[Sidenote: Duke of Marlborough. ]

The great hero of this war was doubtless the Duke of Marlborough, although Prince Eugene gained with him as imperishable glories as warcan bestow. John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, cannot be said to beone of those geniuses who have impressed their minds on nations andcenturies; but he was a man who gave great lustre to the British name, and who attained to a higher pitch of military fame than any generalwhom England has produced since Oliver Cromwell, with the exception ofWellington. 

He was born in 1650, of respectable parents, and was page of honor tothe Duke of York, afterwards James II. While a mere boy, his bent ofmind was discernible, and he solicited and obtained from the duke anensign's commission, and rapidly passed through the military grades oflieutenant, captain, major, and colonel. During the infamous alliancebetween Louis XIV. And Charles II. , he served under Marshal Turenne, and learned from him the art of war. But he also distinguished himselfas a diplomatic agent of Charles II. , in his intrigues with Hollandand France. Before the accession of James II. , he was created aScottish peer, by the title of Baron Churchill. He followed his royalpatron in his various peregrinations, and, when he succeeded to theEnglish throne, he was raised to an English peerage. But Marlboroughdeserted his patron on the landing of William III. , and was made amember of his Privy Council, and lord of the bed-chamber. Two daysbefore the coronation of William, he was made Earl of Marlborough; butwas not intrusted with as high military command as his genius andservices merited, William being apparently jealous of his fame. On theaccession of Anne, he was sent to the Continent with the supremecommand of the English armies in the war with Louis about the SpanishSuccession. His services in the campaign of 1702 secured a dukedom, and deservedly, for he contended against great obstacles--against theobstinacy and stupidity of the Dutch deputies; against the timidity ofthe English government at home; and against the veteran armies ofLouis, led on by the celebrated Villars. But neither the campaigns of1702 or 1703 were marked by any decisive battles. In 1704 was foughtthe celebrated battle of Blenheim, by which the French power wascrippled, and the hopes of Louis prostrated. 

The campaign of 1703 closed disastrously for the allies. Europe wasnever in greater peril. Bavaria united with France and Spain to crushAustria. The Austrians had only twenty thousand men, while theBavarians had forty-five thousand men in the centre of Germany, andMarshal Tallard was posted, with forty-five thousand men, on the UpperRhine. Marshal Villeroy opposed Marlborough in the Netherlands. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Blenheim. ]

But Marlborough conceived the bold project of marching his troops tothe banks of the Danube, and there uniting with the Imperialists underPrince Eugene, to cut off the forces of the enemy before they couldunite. So he left the Dutch to defend themselves against Villeroy, rapidly ascended the Rhine, before any of the enemy dreamed of hisdesigns. From Mentz, he proceeded with forty thousand men toHeidelberg, and from Heidelberg to Donauworth, on the Danube, wherehis troops, which had effected a junction with the Austrians andPrussians, successfully engaged the Bavarians. But the Bavarians andthe French also succeeded in uniting their forces; and both partiesprepared for a desperate conflict. There were about eighty thousandmen on each side. The French and Bavarians were strongly intrenched atthe village of Blenheim; and Marlborough, against the advice of mostof his generals, resolved to attack their fortified camp before it wasreënforced by a large detachment of troops which Villeroy had sent. "Iknow the danger, " said Marlborough; "but a battle is absolutelynecessary. " He was victorious. Forty thousand of the enemy were killedor taken prisoners; Tallard himself was taken, and every trophy wassecured which marks a decisive victory. By his great victory, theEmperor of Austria was relieved from his fears, the Hungarians wereoverawed, Bavaria fell under the sway of the emperor, and the armiesof Louis were dejected and discouraged. Marlborough marched back againto Holland without interruption, was made a prince of the empire, andreceived pensions and lands from the English government, which madehim one of the richest and greatest of the English nobility. Thepalace of Blenheim was built, and he received the praises and plauditsof the civilized world. 

The French were hardly able to cope with Marlborough during the nextcampaign, but rallied in 1706, during which year the great battle ofRamillies was fought, and won by Marlborough. The conquest of Brabant, and the greater part of Spanish Flanders, resulted from this victory;and Louis, crippled and humiliated, made overtures of peace. Thoughequitable, they were rejected; the allies having resolved that nopeace should be made with the house of Bourbon while a prince of thathouse continued to sit upon the throne of Spain. Louis appealed now, in his distress, to the national honor, sent his plate to the mint, and resolved, in his turn, to contend, to the last extremity, with hisenemies, whom success had intoxicated. 

The English, not content with opposing Louis in the Netherlands and inGermany, sent their armies into Spain, also, who, united with theAustrians, overran the country, and nearly completed its conquest. Oneof the most gallant and memorable exploits of the war was the siegeand capture of Barcelona by the Earl of Peterborough, the city havingmade one of the noblest and most desperate defences since the siege ofNumantia. 

[Sidenote: Exertions and Necessities of Louis. ]

The exertions of Louis were equal to his necessities; and, in 1707, hewas able to send large armies into the field. None of his generalswere able to resist the Duke of Marlborough, who gained new victories, and took important cities; but, in Spain, the English met withreverses. In 1708, Louis again offered terms of peace, which wereagain rejected. His country was impoverished, his resources wereexhausted, and a famine carried away his subjects. He agreed to yieldthe whole Spanish monarchy to the house of Austria, without anyequivalent; to cede to the emperor his conquests on the Rhine, and tothe Dutch the great cities which Marlborough had taken; to acknowledgethe Elector of Brandenburg as King of Prussia, and Anne as Queen ofEngland; to remove the Pretender from his dominions; to acknowledgethe succession of the house of Hanover; to restore every thingrequired by the Duke of Savoy; and agree to the cessions made to theKing of Portugal. 

And yet these conditions, so honorable and advantageous to the allies, were rejected, chiefly through the influence of Marlborough, Eugene, and the pensionary Heinsius, who acted from entirely selfish motives. Louis was not permitted to cherish the most remote hope of peacewithout surrendering the strongest cities of his dominions as pledgesfor the entire evacuation of the Spanish monarchy by his grandson. This he would not agree to. He threw himself, in his distress, uponthe loyalty of his people. Their pride and honor were excited; and, inspite of all their misfortunes, they prepared to make new efforts. Again were the French defeated at the great battle of Malplaquet, whenninety thousand men contended on each side; and again did Louis suefor peace. Again were his overtures rejected, and again did he rallyhis exhausted nation. Some victories in Spain were obtained over theconfederates; but the allies gradually were hemming him around, andthe king-hunt was nearly up, when unexpected dissensions among theallies relieved him of his enemies. 

[Sidenote: Treaty of Utrecht. ]

These dissensions were the struggles between the Whigs and Tories inEngland; the former maintaining that no peace should be made; thelatter, that the war had been carried far enough, and was prolongedonly to gratify the ambition of Marlborough. The great general, inconsequence, lost popularity; and the Tories succeeded in securing apeace, just as Louis was on the verge of ruin. Another campaign, hadthe allies been united, would probably have enabled Marlborough topenetrate to Paris. That was his aim; that was the aim of his party. But the nation was weary of war, and at last made peace with Louis. Bythe treaty of Utrecht, (1713, ) Philip V. Resumed the throne of Spain, but was compelled to yield his rights to the crown of France in caseof the death of a sickly infant, the great-grandson of Louis XIV. , whowas heir apparent to the throne; but, in other respects, the termswere not more favorable than what Louis had offered in 1706, and veryinadequate to the expenses of the war. The allies should have yieldedto the overtures of Louis before, or should have persevered. But partyspirit, and division in the English cabinet and parliament, preventedthe consummation which the Whigs desired, and Louis was saved fromfurther humiliation and losses. 

[Sidenote: Last Days of Louis. ]

But his power was broken. He was no longer the autocrat of Europe, buta miserable old man, who had lived to see irreparable calamitiesindicted on his nation, and calamities in consequence of his ambition. His latter years were melancholy. He survived his son and hisgrandson. He saw himself an object of reproach, of ridicule, and ofcompassion. He sought the religious consolation of his church, but wasthe victim of miserable superstition, and a tool of the Jesuits. Hewas ruled by his wife, the widow of the poet Scarron, whom hischildren refused to honor. His last days were imbittered bydisappointments and mortifications, disasters in war, and domesticafflictions. No man ever, for a while, enjoyed a prouder preëminence. No man ever drank deeper of the bitter cup of disappointed ambitionand alienated affections. No man ever more fully realized the vanityof this world. None of the courtiers, by whom he was surrounded, hecould trust, and all his experiences led to a disbelief in humanvirtue. He saw, with shame, that his palaces, his wars, and hispleasures, had consumed the resources of the nation, and had sowed theseeds of a fearful revolution. He lost his spirits; his temper becamesoured; mistrust and suspicion preyed upon his mind. His love of pompsurvived all his other weaknesses, and his court, to the last, wasmost rigid in its wearisome formalities. But the pageantry ofVersailles was a poor antidote to the sorrows which bowed his head tothe ground, except on those great public occasions when his pridetriumphed over his grief. Every day, in his last years, somethingoccurred to wound his vanity, and alienate him from all the world butMadame de Maintenon, the only being whom he fully trusted, and who didnot deceive him. Indeed, the humiliated monarch was an object of pityas well as of reproach, and his death was a relief to himself, as wellas to his family. He died in 1715, two years after the peace ofUtrecht, not much regretted by the nation. 

[Sidenote: His Character. ]

Louis XIV. Cannot be numbered among the monsters of the human race whohave worn the purple of royalty. His chief and worst vice was egotism, which was born with him, which was cultivated by all the influences ofhis education, and by all the circumstances of his position. Thisabsorbing egotism made him insensible to the miseries he inflicted, and cherished in his soul the notion that France was created for himalone. His mistresses, his friends, his wives, his children, hiscourt, and the whole nation, were viewed only as the instruments ofhis pride and pleasure. All his crimes and blunders proceeded from hisextraordinary selfishness. If we could look on him without this moraltaint, which corrupted and disgraced him, we should see an indulgentfather and a generous friend. He attended zealously to the duties ofhis station, and sought not to shake off his responsibilities. Heloved pleasure, but, in its pursuit, he did not forget the affairs ofthe realm. He rewarded literature, and appreciated merit. He honoredthe institutions of religion, and, in his latter days, was devoted toits duties, so far as he understood them. He has been foolishlypanegyrized, and as foolishly censured. Still his reign was baneful, on the whole, especially to the interests of enlightened Christianityand to popular liberty. He was a bigoted Catholic, and sought toerect, on the ruins of states and empires, an absolute and universalthrone. He failed; and instead of bequeathing to his successors thepower which he enjoyed, he left them vast debts, a distracted empire, and a discontented people. He bequeathed to France the revolutionwhich hurled her monarch from his throne, but which was overruled forher ultimate good. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Louis XIV. Et son Siècle. Voltaire's and Miss Pardoe's Histories of the Reign of Louis XIV. James's Life of Louis XIV. Mémoires du Duc de St. Simon. The Abbé Millot's History. D'Anquetil's Louis XIV. , sa Cour, et le Régent. Sismondi's History of France. Crowe's and Rankin's Histories of France. Lord Mahon's War of the Spanish Succession. Temple's Memoirs. Coxe's Life of Marlborough. Memoirs of Madame de Maintenon. Madame de Sévigné's Letters. Russell's Modern Europe. The late history by Miss Pardoe is one of the most interesting ever written. It may have too much gossip for what is called the "dignity of history;" but that fault, if fault it be, has been made by Macaulay also, and has been condemned, not unfrequently, by those most incapable of appreciating philosophical history. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

WILLIAM AND MARY. 

[Sidenote: William and Mary. ]

From Louis XIV. We turn to consider the reign of his illustriousrival, William III. , King of England, who enjoyed the throneconjointly with Mary, daughter of James II. 

The early life and struggles of this heroic prince have been alreadyalluded to, in the two previous chapters, and will not be furtherdiscussed. On the 12th day of February, 1689, he arrived at Whitehall, the favorite palace of the Stuart kings, and, on the 11th of April, heand Mary were crowned in Westminster Abbey. 

Their reign is chiefly memorable for the war with Louis XIV. , therebellion in Ireland, fomented by the intrigues of James II. , and forthe discussion of several great questions pertaining to the libertiesand the prosperity of the English nation, questions in relation to thecivil list, the Place Bill, the Triennial Bill, the liberty of thepress, a standing army, the responsibility of ministers, the veto ofthe crown, the administration of Ireland, the East India Company, theBank of England, and the funded debt. These topics make the domestichistory of the country, especially in a constitutional point of view, extremely important. 

The great struggle with Louis XIV. Has already received all the noticewhich the limits of this work will allow, in which it was made toappear that, if Louis XIV. Was the greater king, William III. Was thegreater man; and, although his military enterprises were, in onesense, unsuccessful, since he did not triumph in splendid victories, still he opposed successfully what would have been, without hisheroism, an overwhelming torrent of invasion and conquest, inconsequence of vastly superior forces. The French king was eventuallyhumbled, and the liberties of continental Europe were preserved. 

Under the wise, tolerant, and liberal administration of William, theBritish empire was preserved from disunion, and invaluable libertiesand privileges were guaranteed. 

[Sidenote: Irish Rebellion. ]

Scarcely was he seated on the throne, which his wife inherited fromthe proud descendants of the Norman Conqueror, when a rebellion inIreland broke out, and demanded his presence in that distracted andunfortunate country. 

The Irish people, being Roman Catholics, had sympathized withJames II. In all his troubles, and were resolved to defend his causeagainst a Calvinistic king. In a short time after his establishment atSt. Germain's, through the bounty of the French king, he began tointrigue with the disaffected Irish chieftains. The most noted ofthese was Tyrconnel, who contrived to deprive the Protestants of LordMountjoy, their most trusted and able leader, by sending him on amission to James II. , by whose influence he was confined, on hisarrival at Paris, in the Bastile. Tyrconnel then proceeded to disarmthe Protestants, and recruit the Catholic army, which was raised intwo months to a force of forty thousand men, burning to revenge theirpast injuries, and recover their ancient possessions and privileges. James II. Was invited by the army to take possession of his throne. Heaccepted the invitation, and, early in 1689, made his triumphal entryinto Dublin, and was received with a pomp and homage equal to hisdignity. But James did not go to Ireland merely to enjoy the homageand plaudits of the Irish people, but to defend the last footholdwhich he retained as King of England, trusting that success in Irelandwould eventually restore to him the throne of his ancestors. And hewas cordially, but not powerfully, supported by the French king, whowas at war with England, and who justly regarded Ireland as the mostassailable part of the British empire. 

The Irish parliament, in the interest of James, passed an act ofattainder against all Protestants who had assisted William, among whomwere two archbishops, one duke, seventeen earls, eighteen barons, andeighty-three clergymen. By another act, Ireland was made independentof England. The Protestants were every where despoiled and insulted. 

But James was unequal to the task he had assumed, incapable either ofpreserving Ireland or retaking England. He was irresolute andundecided. He could not manage an Irish House of Commons any betterthan he could an English one. He debased the coin, and resorted toirritating measures to raise money. 

At last he concluded to subdue the Protestants in Ulster, and advancedto lay siege to Londonderry, upon which depended the fate of the northof Ireland. It was bravely defended by the inhabitants, and finallyrelieved by the troops sent over from England under the command ofKirke--the same who inflicted the cruelties in the west of Englandunder James II. But William wanted able officers, and he took themindiscriminately from all parties. Nine thousand people miserablyperished by famine and disease in the town, before the siege wasraised, one of the most memorable in the annals of war. 

Ulster was now safe, and the discomfiture of James was rapidlyeffected. Old Marshal Schomberg was sent into Ireland with sixteenthousand veteran troops, and, shortly after, William himself (June 14, 1690) landed at Carrickfergus, near Belfast, with additional men, whoswelled the Protestant army to forty thousand. 

[Sidenote: King James in Ireland. ]

The contending forces advanced to the conflict, and on the 1st of Julywas fought the battle of the Boyne, in which Schomberg was killed, butwhich resulted in the defeat of the troops of James II. Thediscomfited king fled to Dublin, but quitted it as soon as he hadentered it, and embarked hastily at Waterford for France, leaving theEarl of Tyrconnel to contend with vastly superior forces, and to makethe best terms in his power. 

The country was speedily subdued, and all the important cities andfortresses, one after the other, surrendered to the king. Limerickheld out the longest, and made an obstinate resistance, but finallyyielded to the conqueror; and with its surrender terminated the finalefforts of the old Irish inhabitants to regain the freedom which theyhad lost. Four thousand persons were outlawed, and their possessionsconfiscated. Indeed, at different times, the whole country has beenconfiscated, with the exception of the possessions of a few familiesof English blood. In the reign of James I. , the whole province ofUlster, containing three millions of acres, was divided among the newinhabitants. At the restoration, eight millions of acres, and, afterthe surrender of Limerick, one million more of acres, wereconfiscated. During the reign of William and Mary, the Catholic Irishwere treated with extreme rigor, and Ireland became a field forplace-hunters. All important or lucrative offices in the church, thestate, and the army, were filled with the needy dependants of thegreat Whig families. Injustice to the nation was constantly exercised, and penal laws were imposed by the English parliament, and inreference to matters which before came under the jurisdiction of theIrish parliament. But, with all these rigorous measures, Ireland wasstill ruled with more mildness than at any previous period in itshistory, and no great disturbance again occurred until the reign ofGeorge III. 

But the reign of William III. , however beneficial to the liberties ofEngland and of Europe, was far from peaceful. Apart from his greatstruggle with the French king, his comfort and his composure of mindwere continually disturbed by domestic embarrassments, arising fromthe jealousies between the Whigs and Tories, the intrigues ofstatesmen with the exiled family, and discussions in parliament inreference to those great questions which attended the settlement ofthe constitution. A bill was passed, called the _Place Bill_, excluding all officers of the crown from the House of Commons, whichshowed the jealousy of the people respecting royal encroachments. Alaw also was passed, called the _Triennial Bill_, which limited theduration of parliament to three years, but which, in a subsequentreign, was repealed, and one substituted which extended the durationof a parliament to seven years. An important bill was also passedwhich regulated trials in case of treason, in which the prisoner wasfurnished with a copy of the indictment, with the names and residencesof jurors, with the privilege of peremptory challenge, and with fulldefence of counsel. This bill guaranteed new privileges and rights toprisoners. 

[Sidenote: Freedom of the Press. ]

The great question pertaining to the Liberty of the Press wasdiscussed at this time--one of the most vital questions which affectthe stability of government on the one side, and the liberties of thepeople on the other. So desirable have all governments deemed thecontrol of the press by themselves, that parliament, when it abolishedthe Star Chamber, in the reign of Charles I. , still assumed its powersrespecting the licensing of books. Various modifications were, fromtime to time, made in the laws pertaining to licensing books, until, in the reign of William, the liberty of the press was establishednearly upon its present basis. 

William, in general, was in favor of those movements which provedbeneficial in after times, or which the wisdom of a subsequent age sawfit to adopt. Among these was the union of England and Scotland, whichhe recommended. Under his auspices, the affairs of the East IndiaCompany were considered and new charters granted; the Bank of Englandwas erected; benevolent action for the suppression of vice and for theamelioration of the condition of the poor took place; the coinage wasadjusted and financial experiments were made. 

The crown, on the whole, lost power during this reign, which wastransferred to the House of Commons. The Commons acquired the completecontrol of the purse, which is considered paramount to all otherauthority. Prior to the Revolution, the supply for the public servicewas placed at the disposal of the sovereign, but the definite sum ofseven hundred thousand pounds, yearly, was placed at the disposal ofWilliam, to defray the expense of the civil list and his otherexpenses, while the other contingent expenses of government, includingthose for the support of the army and navy, were annually appropriatedby the Commons. 

[Sidenote: Act of Settlement--Death of William III. ]

The most important legislative act of this reign was the Act ofSettlement, March 12, 1701, which provided that England should befreed from the obligation of engaging in any war for the defence ofthe foreign dominions of the king; that all succeeding kings must beof the communion of the Church of England; that no succeeding kingshould go out of the British dominions without consent of parliament;that no person in office, or pensioner, should be a member of theCommons; that the religious liberties of the people should be furthersecured; that the judges should hold office during good behavior, andhave their salaries ascertained; and that the succession to the throneshould be confined to Protestant princes. 

King William reigned in England thirteen years, with much ability, andsagacity, and prudence, and never attempted to subvert theconstitution, for which his memory is dear to the English people. Butmost of his time, as king, was occupied in directing warlikeoperations on the Continent, and in which he showed a great jealousyof the genius of Marlborough, whose merits he nevertheless finallyadmitted. He died March 8, 1702, and was buried in the sepulchre ofthe kings of England. 

[Sidenote: Character of William. ]

Notwithstanding the animosity of different parties againstWilliam III. , public opinion now generally awards to him, consideringthe difficulties with which he had to contend, the first place amongthe English kings. He had many enemies and many defects. The Jacobiteshated him because "he upset their theory of the divine rights ofkings; the High Churchmen because he was indifferent to the forms ofchurch government; the Tories because he favored the Whigs; and theRepublicans because he did not again try the hopeless experiment of arepublic. " He was not a popular idol, in spite of his great servicesand great qualities, because he was cold, reserved, and unyielding;because he disdained to flatter, and loved his native better than hisadopted country. But his faults were chiefly offences against goodmanners, and against the prejudices of the nation. He distrusted humannature, and disdained human sympathy. He was ambitious, and hisambition was allied with selfishness. He permitted the slaughter ofthe De Witts, and never gave Marlborough a command worthy of histalents. He had no taste for literature, wit, or the fine arts. Hisfavorite tastes were hunting, gardening and upholstery. That he was, however, capable of friendship, is attested by his long and devotedattachment to Bentinck, whom he created Earl of Portland, andsplendidly rewarded with rich and extensive manors in every part ofthe land. His reserve and coldness may in part be traced to hisprofound knowledge of mankind, whom he feared to trust. But if he wasnot beloved by the nation, he secured their eternal respect by beingthe first to solve the problem of constitutional monarchy, and bysuccessfully ruling, at a very critical period, the Dutch, theEnglish, the Scotch, and the Irish, who had all separate interests andjealousies; by yielding, when in possession of great power, torestraints he did not like; and by undermining the intrigues and powerof so mighty an enemy of European liberties as Louis XIV. His heroismshone brilliantly in defeat and disaster, and his courage and exertionnever flagged when all Europe desponded, and when he himself laboredunder all the pains and lassitude of protracted disease. He diedserenely, but hiding from his attendants, as he did all his days, theprofoundest impressions which agitated his earnest and heroic soul. 

[Sidenote: Sir Isaac Newton and John Locke. ]

Among the great men whom he encouraged and rewarded, may be mentionedthe historian Burnet, whom he made Bishop of Salisbury, and Tillotsonand Tennison, whom he elevated to archiepiscopal thrones. Dr. Southand Dr. Bentley also adorned this age of eminent divines. The greatpoets of the period were Prior, Dryden, Swift, and Pope, who, however, are numbered more frequently among the wits of the reign of Anne. Robert Boyle distinguished himself for experiments in natural science, and zeal for Christian knowledge; and Christopher Wren for his geniusin architectural art. But the two great lights of this reign were, doubtless, Sir Isaac Newton and John Locke, to whom the realm ofnatural and intellectual philosophy is more indebted than to any othermen of genius from the time of Bacon. The discoveries of Newton arescarcely without a parallel, and he is generally regarded as thegreatest mathematical intellect that England has produced. To him theworld is indebted for the binomial theorem, discovered at the age oftwenty-two; for the invention of fluxions; for the demonstration ofthe law of gravitation; and for the discovery of the differentrefrangibility of rays of light. His treatise on Optics and his_Principia_, in which he brought to light the new theory of theuniverse, place him at the head of modern philosophers--on a highvantage ground, to which none have been elevated, of his age, with theexception of Leibnitz and Galileo. But his greatest glory was hismodesty, and the splendid tribute he rendered to the truths ofChristianity, whose importance and sublime beauty he was ever mostproud to acknowledge in an age of levity and indifference. 

John Locke is a name which almost exclusively belongs to the reign ofWilliam III. , and he will also ever be honorably mentioned in theconstellation of the very great geniuses and Christians of the world. His treatises on Religious Toleration are the most masterly everwritten, while his Essay on the Human Understanding is a great systemof truth, as complete, original, and logical, in the department ofmental science, as was the system of Calvin in the realm of theology. Locke's Essay has had its enemies and detractors, and, while manyeminent men have dissented from it, it nevertheless remains, one ofthe most enduring and proudest monuments of the immortal andever-expanding intellect of man. 

[Sidenote: Anne. ]

On the death of William III. , (1702, ) the Princess Anne, daughter ofJames II. , peaceably ascended the throne. She was thirty-seven yearsof age, a woman of great weaknesses, and possessing but fewinteresting qualities. Nevertheless, her reign is radiant with theglory of military successes, and adorned with every grace of fancy, wit, and style in literature. The personal talent and exclusiveambition of William suppressed the national genius; but the incapacityof Anne gave scope for the commanding abilities of Marlborough in thefield, and Godolphin in the cabinet. 

The memorable events connected with her reign of twelve years, were, the war of the Spanish succession, in which Marlborough humbled thepride of Louis XIV. ; the struggles of the Whigs and Tories; the unionof Scotland with England; the discussion and settlement of greatquestions pertaining to the constitution, and the security of theProtestant religion; and the impulse which literature received fromthe constellation of learned men who were patronized by thegovernment, and who filled an unusual place in public estimation. 

In a political point of view, this reign is but the continuation ofthe reign of William, since the same objects were pursued, the samepolicy was adopted, and the same great characters were intrusted withpower. The animating object of William's life was the suppression ofthe power of Louis XIV. ; and this object was never lost sight of bythe English government under the reign of Anne. 

Hence the great political event of the reign was the war of theSpanish succession, which, however, pertains to the reign of Louis aswell as to that of Anne. It was during this war that the great battlesof Blenheim, Ramillies, and Malplaquet attested the genius of thegreatest military commander that England had ever sent into the field. It was this war which exhausted the energies and resources of all thecontending states of Europe, and created a necessity for many years ofslumbering repose. It was this war which completed the humiliation ofa monarch who aspired to the sovereignty of Europe, which preservedthe balance of power, and secured the liberties of Europe. Yet it wasa war which laid the foundation of the national debt, inflamed theEnglish mind with a mad passion for military glory, which demoralizedthe nation, and fostered those international jealousies and enmitieswhich are still a subject of reproach to the two most powerful statesof Europe. This war made England a more prominent actor on the arenaof European strife, and perhaps contributed to her politicalaggrandizement. The greatness of the British empire begins to datefrom this period, although this greatness is more to be traced tocolonial possessions, manufactures, and commercial wealth, than to thevictories of Marlborough. 

[Sidenote: The Duke of Marlborough. ]

It will ever remain an open question whether or not it was wise in theEnglish nation to continue so long the struggle with Louis XIV. In afinancial and material point of view, the war proved disastrous. Butit is difficult to measure the real greatness of a country, and solidand enduring blessings, by pounds, shillings, and pence. All suchcalculations, however statistically startling, are erroneous anddeceptive. The real strength of nations consists in loyalty, patriotism, and public spirit; and no sacrifices can be too great tosecure these unbought blessings--"this cheap defence. " If thevictories of Marlborough secured these, gave dignity to the Britishname, and an honorable and lofty self-respect to the English people, they were not dearly purchased. But the settlement of these questionscannot be easily made. 

As to the remarkable genius of the great man who infused courage intothe English mind, there can be no question. Marlborough, in spite ofhis many faults, his selfishness and parsimony, his ambition andduplicity, will ever enjoy an enviable fame. He was not so great amoral hero as William, nor did he contend against such superior forcesas the royal hero. But he was a great hero, nevertheless. His glorywas reached by no sudden indulgence of fortune, by no fortunatemovements, by no accidental circumstances. His fame was progressive. He never made a great mistake; he never lost the soundness of hisjudgment. No success unduly elated him, and no reverses discouragedhim. He never forgot the interests of the nation in his own personalannoyances or enmities. He was magnanimously indulgent to those Dutchdeputies who thwarted his measures, criticized his plans, and lecturedhim on the art of war. The glory of his country was the prevailingdesire of his soul. He was as great in diplomacy and statesmanship ason the field of Blenheim. He ever sacrificed his feelings as avictorious general to his duty as a subject. His sagacity was onlyequalled by his prudence and patience, and these contributed, as wellas his personal bravery, to his splendid successes, which secured forhim magnificent rewards--palaces and parks, peerages, and a nation'sgratitude and praise. 

But there is a limit to all human glory. Marlborough was undermined byhis political enemies, and he himself lost the confidence of the queenwhom he had served, partly by his own imperious conduct, and partlyfrom the overbearing insolence of his wife. From the height of popularfavor, he descended to the depth of popular hatred. He was held up, bythe sarcasm of the writers whom he despised, to derision and obloquy;was accused of insolence, cruelty, ambition, extortion, and avarice, discharged from his high offices, and obliged to seek safety by exile. He never regained the confidence of the nation, although, when hedied, parliament decreed him a splendid funeral, and a grave inWestminster Abbey. 

[Sidenote: Character of Marlborough. ]

In private life, he was amiable and kind; was patient undercontradiction, and placid in manners; had great self-possession, andextraordinary dignity. His person was beautiful, and his addresscommanding. He was feared as a general, but loved as a man. He neverlost his affections for his home, and loved to idolatry his imperiouswife, his equal, if not superior, in the knowledge of human nature. These qualities as a man, a general, and a statesman, in spite of hisdefects, have immortalized his name, and he will, for a long time tocome, be called, and called with justice, the _great_ Duke ofMarlborough. 

Scarcely less than he, was Lord Godolphin, the able prime minister ofAnne, with whom Marlborough was united by family ties, by friendship, by official relations, and by interest. He was a Tory by profession, but a Whig in his policy. He rose with Marlborough, and fell with him, being an unflinching advocate for the prosecution of the war to theutmost limits, for which his government was distasteful to the Tories. His life was not stainless; but, in an age of corruption, he ablyadministered the treasury department, and had control of unboundedwealth, without becoming rich--the highest praise which can ever beawarded to a minister of finance. It was only through the coöperationof this sagacious and far-sighted statesman that Marlborough himselfwas enabled to prosecute his brilliant military career. 

[Sidenote: Whigs and Tories. ]

It was during his administration that party animosity was at itsheight--the great struggle which has been going on, in England, fornearly two hundred years, between the Whigs and Tories. These namesoriginated in the reign of Charles II. , and were terms of reproach. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity tothe fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the name ofthe _Whigs_; and the country party pretended to find a resemblancebetween the courtiers and the Popish banditti of Ireland, to whom theappellation of _Tory_ was affixed. The High Church party and theadvocates of absolutism belonged to the Tories; the more liberal partyand the advocates of constitutional reform, to the Whigs. The formerwere conservative, the latter professed a sympathy with improvements. But the leaders of both parties were among the greatest nobles in therealm, and probably cared less for any great innovation than they didfor themselves. These two great parties, in the progress of society, have changed their views, and the opinions once held by the Whigs wereafterwards adopted by the Tories. On the whole, the Whigs were inadvance in liberality of mind, and in enlightened plans of government. But both parties, in England, have ever been aristocratic, and bothhave felt nearly an equal disgust of popular influences. Charles andJames sympathized with the Tories more than with the Whigs; butWilliam III. Was supported by the Whigs, who had the ascendency in hisreign. Queen Anne was a Tory, as was to be expected from a princess ofthe house of Stuart; but, in the early part of her reign, was obligedto yield to the supremacy of the Whigs. The advocates for war wereWhigs, and those who desired peace were Tories. The Whigs looked tothe future glory of the country; the Tories, to the expenses which warcreated. The Tories at last got the ascendency, and expelledGodolphin, Marlborough, and Sunderland from power. 

Of the Tory leaders, Harley, (Earl of Oxford, ) St. John, (LordBolingbroke, ) the Duke of Buckingham, and the Duke of Ormond, the Earlof Rochester, and Lord Dartmouth, were the most prominent, but thisTory party was itself divided, in consequence of jealousies betweenthe chiefs, the intrigues of Harley, and the measureless ambition ofBolingbroke. Under the ascendency of the Tories the treaty of Utrechtwas made, now generally condemned by historians of both Whig and Torypolitics. It was disproportioned to the success of the war, althoughit secured the ends of the grand alliance. 

[Sidenote: Dr. Henry Sacheverell. ]

One of the causes which led to the overthrow of the Whigs was theimpeachment and trial of Dr. Henry Sacheverell, an event which excitedintense interest at the time, and, though insignificant in itself, touched some vital principles of the constitution. 

This divine was a man of mean capacity, and of little reputation forlearning or virtue. He had been, during the reign of William, anoutrageous Whig; but, finding his services disregarded, he became aviolent Tory. By a sort of plausible effrontery and scurrilousrhetoric, he obtained the applause of the people, and the valuableliving of St. Saviour, Southwark. The audacity of his railings againstthe late king and the revolution at last attracted the notice ofgovernment; and for two sermons which he printed, and in which heinculcated, without measure, the doctrine of passive obedience, consigned Dissenters to eternal damnation, and abused the greatprinciple of religious toleration, he was formally impeached. AllEngland was excited by the trial. The queen herself privatelyattended, to encourage a man who was persecuted for his loyalty, andpersecuted for defending his church. The finest orators and lawyers ofthe day put forth all their energies. Bishop Atterbury wrote forSacheverell his defence, which was endorsed by a conclave of HighChurch divines. The result of the trial was the condemnation of thedoctor, and with it the fall of his adversaries. He was suspended forthree years, but his defeat was a triumph. He was received, in collegehalls and private mansions, with the pomp of a sovereign and thereverence of a saint. His sentence made his enemies unpopular. Thegreat body of the English nation, wedded to High Church principles, took sides in his favor. But the arguments of his accusers developedsome great principles--led to the assertion of the doctrines oftoleration; for, if passive obedience to the rulers of the state andchurch were obligatory, then all Dissenters might be curbed andsuppressed. The Whig managers of the trial, by opposing the bigotedChurchmen, aided the cause of dissent, justified the revolution, andupheld the conquest by William III. And their speeches are uponrecord, that they asserted the great principles of civil and religiousliberty, in the face of all the authority, dignity, and wisdom of therealm. It is true they lost as a party, on account of the bigotry ofthe times; but they furnished another pillar to uphold theconstitution, and adduced new and powerful arguments in support ofconstitutional liberty. The country gained, if they, as a party, lost;and though Sacheverell was lauded by his church, his conviction was atriumph to the friends of freedom. Good resulted in many other ways. Political leaders learned moral wisdom; they saw the folly ofpersecuting men for libels, when such men had the sympathy of thepeople; that such persecutions were undignified, and that, while theygained their end, they lost more by victory than by defeat. The trialof Sacheverell, while it brought to view more clearly some greatconstitutional truths, also more effectually advanced the liberty ofthe press; for, surely, restriction on the press is a worse evil, thanthe violence and vituperation of occasional libels. 

[Sidenote: Union of Scotland and England. ]

The great domestic event of this reign was doubtless the union ofScotland and England; a consummation of lasting peace between the twocountries, which William III. Had proposed. Nothing could be morebeneficent for both the countries; and the only wonder is, that it wasnot done before, when James II. Ascended the English throne; andnothing then, perhaps, prevented it, but the bitter jealousy which hadso long existed between these countries; a jealousy, dislike, andprejudice which have hardly yet passed away. 

Scotland, until the reign of James II. , was theoretically andpractically independent of England, but was not so fortunately placed, as the latter country, for the development of energies. The countrywas smaller, more barren, and less cultivated. The people were lesscivilized; and had less influence on the political welfare of thestate. The aristocracy were more powerful, and were more jealous ofroyal authority. There were constant feuds and jealousies betweendominant classes, which checked the growth in political importance, wealth, and civilization. But the people were more generally imbuedwith the ultra principles of the Reformation, were more religious, andcherished a peculiar attachment to the Presbyterian form of churchgovernment, and a peculiar hatred of every thing which resembled RomanCatholicism. They were, moreover, distinguished for patriotism, andhad great jealousy of English influences. 

James II. Was the legitimate King of Scotland, as well as of England;but he soon acquired a greater love for England, than he retained forhis native country; and England being the greater country, theinterests of Scotland were frequently sacrificed to those of England. 

Queen Anne, as the daughter of James II. , was also the legitimatesovereign of Scotland; and, on her decease, the Scotch were not boundto acknowledge the Elector of Hanover as their legitimate king. 

[Sidenote: Duke of Hamilton. ]

Many ardent and patriotic Scotchmen, including the Duke of Hamiltonand Fletcher of Saltoun, deemed it a favorable time to assert, on thedeath of Queen Anne, their national independence, since the Englishgovernment was neither just nor generous to the lesser country. 

Under these circumstances, there were many obstacles to a permanentunion, and it was more bitterly opposed in Scotland than in England. The more patriotic desired complete independence. Many were jealous ofthe superior prosperity of England. The people in the Highlands andthe north of Scotland were Jacobinical in their principles, and wereattached to the Stuart dynasty. The Presbyterians feared the influenceof English Episcopacy, and Scottish peers deprecated a serviledependence on the parliament of England. 

But the English government, on the whole, much as it hated ScotchPresbyterianism and Scotch influence, desired a union, in order tosecure the peaceful succession of the house of Hanover, for the northof Scotland was favorable to the Stuarts, and without a union, Englishliberties would be endangered by Jacobinical intrigues. Englishstatesmen felt this, and used every measure to secure this end. 

The Scotch were overreached. Force, bribery, and corruption wereresorted to. The Duke of Hamilton proved a traitor, and the union waseffected--a union exceedingly important to the peace of bothcountries, but especially desirable to England. Important concessionswere made by the English, to which they were driven only by fear. Theymight have ruled Scotland as they did Ireland, but for the intrepidityand firmness of the Scotch, who while negotiations were pending, passed the famous Act of Security, by which the Scottish parliamentdecreed the succession in Scotland, on the death of the queen, openand elective; the independence and power of parliaments; freedom intrade and commerce; and the liberty of Scotland to engage or not inthe English continental wars. The English parliament retaliated, indeed, by an act restricting the trade of Scotland, and declaringScotchmen aliens throughout the English dominions. But the conflictsbetween the Whigs and Tories induced government to repeal the act; andthe commissioners for the union secured their end. 

It was agreed, in the famous treaty they at last effected, that thetwo kingdoms of England and Scotland be united into one, by the nameof _Great Britain_. 

That the succession to the United Kingdom shall remain to the PrincessSophia, Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, beingProtestants; and that all Papists, and persons marrying Papists, shallbe excluded from, and be forever incapable of inheriting, the crown ofGreat Britain;

That the whole people of Great Britain shall be represented by oneparliament, in which sixteen peers and forty-five commoners, chosenfor Scotland, should sit and vote;

That the subjects of the United Kingdom shall enjoy an entire freedomand intercourse of trade and navigation, and reciprocal communicationof all other rights, privileges, and advantages belonging to thesubjects of either kingdom;

That the laws, in regard to public rights and civil government, shallbe the same in both countries, but that no alteration shall be made inthe laws respecting private rights, unless for the evident utility ofthe subjects residing in Scotland;

That the Court of Session, and all other courts of judicature inScotland, remain as before the union, subject, however, to suchregulations as may be made by the parliament of Great Britain. 

Beside these permanent regulations, a sum of three hundred andninety-eight thousand pounds was granted to Scotland, as an equivalentto the augmentation of the customs and excise. 

By this treaty, the Scotch became identified with the English ininterest. They lost their independence; but they gained security andpeace; and rose in wealth and consequence. The nation moreover, wasburdened by the growth of the national debt. The advantage was mutual, but England gained the greater advantage by shifting a portion of herburdens on Scotland, by securing the hardy people of that noblecountry to fight her battles, and by converting a nation of enemiesinto a nation of friends. 

We come now to glance at those illustrious men who adorned theliterature of England in this brilliant age, celebrated for politicalas well as literary writings. 

Of these, Addison, Swift, Bolingbroke, Bentley, Warburton, Arbuthnot, Gay, Pope, Tickell, Halifax, Parnell, Rowe, Prior, Congreve, Steele, and Berkeley, were the most distinguished. Dryden belonged to thepreceding age; to the period of license and gayety--the greatest butmost immoral of all the great poets of England, from the time ofMilton to that of Pope. 

[Sidenote: Wits of Queen Anne's Reign. ]

The wits of Queen Anne's reign were political writers as well aspoets, and their services were sought for and paid by the greatstatesmen of the times, chiefly of the Tory party. Marlboroughneglected the poets, and they contributed to undermine his power. 

Of these wits the most distinguished and respectable was Addison, born1672. He was well educated, and distinguished himself at Oxford, andwas a fellow of Magdalen College. His early verses, which would now bepronounced very inferior, however attracted the notice of Dryden, thenthe great autocrat of letters, and the oracle of the literary clubs. At the age of twenty-seven, Addison was provided with a pension fromthe Whig government, and set out on his travels. He was afterwardsmade secretary to Lord Halifax, and elected a member of the House ofCommons, but was never able to make a speech. He, however, made up forhis failure as an orator by his power as a writer, being a perfectmaster of elegant satire. He was also charming in privateconversation, and his society was much sought by eminent statesmen, scholars, and noblemen. In 1708, he became secretary for Ireland, and, while he resided at Dublin, wrote those delightful papers on which hisfame chiefly rests. Not as the author of Rosamond, nor of Latinverses, nor of the treatise on Medals, nor of Letters from Italy, norof the tragedy of Cato, would he now be known to us. His glory isderived from the Tatler and Spectator--an entirely new species ofwriting in his age, original, simple, and beautiful, but chieflymarked for polished and elegant satire against the follies and badtaste of his age. Moreover, his numbers of the Spectator aredistinguished for elevation of sentiment, and moral purity, withoutharshness, and without misanthropy. He wrote three sevenths of thatimmortal production, and on every variety of subject, without anyattempt to be eloquent or _intense_, without pedantry and withoutaffectation. The success of the work was immense, and every one whocould afford it, had it served on the breakfast table with the tea andtoast. It was the general subject of conversation in all politecircles, and did much to improve the taste and reform the morals ofthe age. There was nothing which he so severely ridiculed as the showof learning without the reality, coxcombry in conversation, extravagance in dress, female flirts and butterflies, gay andfashionable women, and all false modesty and affectation. But heblamed without bitterness, and reformed without exhortation, while heexalted what was simple, and painted in most beautiful colors thevirtues of contentment, simplicity, sincerity, and cheerfulness. 

His latter days were imbittered by party animosity, and the malignantstings of literary rivals. Nor was he happy in his domestic life, having married a proud countess, who did not appreciate his genius. Healso became addicted to intemperate habits. Still he was ever honoredand respected, and, when he died, was buried in Westminster Abbey. 

[Sidenote: Swift. ]

Next to Addison in fame, and superior in genius, was Swift, born inIreland, in 1677, educated at Dublin, and patronized by Sir WilliamTemple. He was rewarded, finally, with the deanery of St. Patrick's. He was very useful to his party by his political writings; but hisfame rests chiefly on his poetry, and his Gulliver's Travels, markedand disgraced by his savage sarcasm on woman, and his vilification ofhuman nature. He was a great master of venomous satire. He sparedneither friends nor enemies. He was ambitious, misanthropic andselfish. His treatment of woman was disgraceful and heartless in theextreme. But he was witty, learned, and natural. He was never known tolaugh, while he convulsed the circles into which he was thrown. He wasrough to his servants, insolent to inferiors, and sycophantic to menof rank. His distinguishing power was his unsparing and unscrupuloussarcasm and his invective was as dreadful as the personal ridicule ofVoltaire. As a poet he was respectable, and as a writer he wasoriginal. He was indifferent to literary fame, and never attempted anyhigher style of composition than that in which he could excel. Hislast days were miserable, and he lingered a long while in hopeless andmelancholy idiocy. 

[Sidenote: Pope--Bolingbroke--Gay--Prior. ]

Pope properly belongs to a succeeding age, though his first writingsattracted considerable attention during the life of Addison, who firstraised him from obscurity. He is the greatest, after Dryden, of allthe second class poets of his country. His Rape of the Lock, the mostoriginal of his poems, established his fame. But his greatest workswere the translations of the Iliad and Odyssey, the Dunciad, and hisEssay on Man. He was well paid for his labors, and lived in abeautiful villa at Twickenham, the friend of Bolingbroke, and thegreatest literary star of his age. But he was bitter and satirical, irritable, parsimonious, and vain. As a versifier, he has never beenequalled. He died in 1744, in the Romish faith, beloved but by few, and disliked by the world generally. 

[Sidenote: Writers of the Age of Queen Anne. ]

Bolingbroke was not a poet, but a man of vast genius, a greatstatesman, and a great writer on history and political philosophy, aman of most fascinating manners and conversation, brilliant, witty, and learned, but unprincipled and intriguing, the great leader of theTory party. Gay, as a poet, was respectable, but poor, unfortunate, ahanger on of great people, and miserably paid for his sycophancy. Hisfame rests on his Fables and his Beggar's Opera. Prior first madehimself distinguished by his satire called A City Mouse and a CountryMouse, aimed against Dryden. He was well rewarded by government, andwas sent as minister to Paris. Like most of the wits of his time, hewas convivial, and not always particular in the choice of hisassociates. Humor was the natural turn of his mind. Steele was editorof the Spectator and wrote some excellent papers, although vastlyinferior to Addison's. He is the father of the periodical essay, was aman of fashion and pleasure, and had great experience in the folliesand vanities of the world. It is doubtful whether the writings of thegreat men who adorned the age of Anne will ever regain the ascendencythey once enjoyed, since they have all been surpassed in succeedingtimes. They had not the fire, enthusiasm, or genius which satisfiesthe wants of the present generation. As poets, they had no greatnessof fancy; and as philosophers, they were cold and superficial. Nor didthey write for the people, but for the great, with whom they sought toassociate, by whose praises they were consoled, and by whose breadthey were sustained. They wrote for a class, and that class alone, that chiefly seeks to avoid ridicule and abstain from absurdity, thatnever attempts the sublime, and never sinks to the ridiculous; a classkeen of observation, fond of the satirical, and indifferent to allinstitutions and enterprises which have for their object the elevationof the masses, or the triumph of the abstract principles of truth andjustice. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Lord Mahon's History of England, which commences with the peace of Utrecht, is one of the most useful and interesting works which have lately appeared. Smollett's continuation of Hume should be consulted, although the author was greater as a novelist than as an historian. Burnet's history on this period is a standard. Hallam should be read in reference to all constitutional questions. Coxe's Life of Marlborough throws great light on the period, and is very valuable. Macaulay's work will, of course, be read. See, also, Bolingbroke's Letters, and the Duke of Berwick's Memoirs. A chapter in the Pictorial History is very good as to literary history and the progress of the arts and sciences. See, also, Johnson's Lives of the Poets; Nichols's Life of Addison; Scott's Life of Swift; Macaulay's Essay on Addison; and the Spectator and Tatler. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

PETER THE GREAT, AND RUSSIA. 

[Sidenote: Early History of Russia. ]

While Louis XIV. Was prosecuting his schemes of aggrandizement, andWilliam III. Was opposing those schemes; while Villeroy, Villars, Marlborough, and Eugene were contending, at the head of great armies, for their respective masters; a new power was arising at the north, destined soon to become prominent among the great empires of theworld. The political importance of Russia was not appreciated at theclose of the seventeenth century, until the great resources of thecountry were brought to the view of Europe by the extraordinary geniusof Peter the Great. 

The history of Russia, before the reign of this great prince, has notexcited much interest, and is not particularly eventful or important. The Russians are descended from the ancient Sclavonic race, supposedto be much inferior to the Germanic or Teutonic tribes, to whom mostof the civilized nations of Europe trace their origin. 

The first great event in Russian history is the nominal conversion ofa powerful king to Christianity, in the tenth century, named Vladimir, whose reign was a mixture of cruelty, licentiousness, and heroism. Seeing the necessity of some generally recognized religion, he sentten of his most distinguished men into all the various countries thenknown, to examine their religious systems. Being semi-barbarians, theywere disposed to recommend that form which had the most imposingceremonial, and appealed most forcibly to the senses. Thecommissioners came to Mecca, but soon left with contempt, sinceMohammedanism then made too great demands upon the powers ofself-control, and prohibited the use of many things to which thebarbarians were attached. They were no better pleased with theManichean philosophy, which then extensively prevailed in the East;for this involved the settlement of abstract ideas, for whichbarbarians had no relish. They disliked Roman Catholicism, on accountof the arrogant claims of the pope. Judaism was spurned, because ithad no country, and its professors were scattered over the face of theearth. But the lofty minarets of St. Sophia, and the extravagantmagnificence of the Greek worship, filled the commissioners withadmiration; and they easily induced Vladimir to adopt the forms of theGreek Church; which has ever since been the established religion ofRussia. But Christianity, in its corrupted form, failed to destroy, and scarcely alleviated, the traits of barbarous life. Oldsuperstitions and vices prevailed; nor were the Russian territories onan equality with the Gothic kingdoms of Europe, in manners, artslearning, laws, or piety. 

[Sidenote: The Tartar Conquest. ]

When Genghis Khan, with his Tartar hordes, overran the world Russiawas subdued, and Tartar princes took possession of the throne of theancient czars. But the Russian princes, in the thirteenth century, recovered their ancient power. Alexander Nevsky performed exploits ofgreat brilliancy; gained important victories over Danes, Swedes, Lithuanians, and Teutonic knights; and greatly enlarged the boundariesof his kingdom. In the fourteenth century, Moscow became a powerfulcity, to which was transferred the seat of government, which beforewas Novgorod. Under the successor of Ivan Kalita, the manners, laws, and institutions of the Russians became fixed, and the absolute powerof the czars was established. Under Ivan III. , who ascended theMuscovite throne in 1462, the Tartar rule was exterminated, and thevarious provinces and principalities, of which Russia was composed, were brought under a central government. The Kremlin, with its mightytowers and imposing minarets, arose in all the grandeur of Eastern artand barbaric strength. The mines of the country were worked, the roadscleared of banditti, and a code of laws established. The veil whichconcealed Russia from the rest of Europe was rent. An army of threehundred thousand men was enlisted, Siberia was discovered, theprinting press introduced, and civilization commenced. But the czarwas, nevertheless, a brutal tyrant and an abandoned libertine, whomassacred his son, executed his nobles, and destroyed his cities. 

His successors were disgraced by every crime which degrades humanity;and the whole population remained in rudeness and barbarism, superstition and ignorance. The clergy wielded enormous power; which, however, was rendered subservient to the interests of absolutism. 

[Sidenote: Accession of Peter the Great. ]

Such was Russia, when Peter, the son of Alexis Michaelovitz, ascendedthe throne, in 1682--a boy, ten years of age. He early exhibited greatsagacity and talent, but was addicted to gross pleasures. These, strangely, did not enervate him, or prevent him from makingconsiderable attainments. But he was most distinguished for a militaryspirit, which was treated with contempt by the Regent Sophia, daughterof Alexis by a first marriage. As soon, however, as her eyes were opento his varied studies and his ambitious spirit, she became jealous, and attempted to secure his assassination. In this she failed, and theyouthful sovereign reigned supreme in Moscow, at the age of seventeen. 

No sooner did he assume the reins of empire, than his genius blazedforth with singular brilliancy, and the rapid development of hispowers was a subject of universal wonder. Full of courage and energy, he found nothing too arduous for him to undertake; and he soonconceived the vast project of changing the whole system of hisgovernment, and reforming the manners of his subjects. 

He first directed his attention to the art of war, and resolved toincrease the military strength of his empire. With the aid of Le Fort, a Swiss adventurer, and Gordon, a Scotch officer, he instituted, gradually, a standing army of twenty thousand men, officered, armed, and disciplined after the European model; cut off the long beards ofthe soldiers, took away their robes, and changed their Asiatic dress. 

He then conceived the idea of a navy, which may be traced to his loveof sailing in a boat, which he had learned to navigate himself. Hestudied assiduously the art of ship-building, and soon laid thefoundation of a navy. 

His enterprising and innovating spirit created, as it was to beexpected, considerable disaffection among the partisans of the old_régime_--the old officers of the army, and the nobles, stripped ofmany of their privileges. A rebellion was the consequence; which, however, was soon suppressed, and the conspirators were executed withunsparing cruelty. 

He then came to the singular resolution of visiting foreign countries, in order to acquire useful information, both in respect to the arts ofgovernment and the arts of civilization. Many amusing incidents arerecorded of him in his travels. He journeyed incognito; clambered upthe sides of ships, ascended the rigging, and descended into the hold;he hired himself out as a workman in Holland, lived on the wretchedstipend which he earned as a ship-carpenter, and mastered all thedetails of ship-building. From Holland he went to England, where hewas received with great honor by William III. ; studied the state ofmanufactures and trades, and sought to gain knowledge on all commonsubjects. From England he went to Austria, intending to go afterwardsto Italy; but he was compelled to return home, on account of arebellion of the old military guard, called the _Strelitz_, who werepeculiarly disaffected. But he easily suppressed the discontents, andpunished the old soldiers with unsparing rigor. He even executedthirty with his own hands. 

[Sidenote: Peter's Reforms. ]

He then turned himself, in good earnest, to the work of reform. Hispassions were military, and he longed to conquer kingdoms and cities. But he saw no probability of success, unless he could first civilizehis subjects, and teach the soldiers the great improvements in the artof war. In order to conquer, he resolved first to reform his nation. His desires were selfish, but happened to be directed into channelswhich benefited his country. Like Napoleon, his ruling passion wasthat of the aggrandizement of himself and nation. But Providencedesigned that his passions should be made subservient to the welfareof his race. It is to his glory that he had enlargement of mindsufficient to perceive the true sources of national prosperity. Tosecure this, therefore, became the aim of his life. He became areformer; but a reformer, like Hildebrand, of the despotic school. 

The first object of all despots is the improvement of the militaryforce. To effect this, he abolished the old privileges of thesoldiers, disbanded them, and drafted them into the new regiments, which he had organized on the European plan. 

He found more difficulty in changing the dress of the people, who, generally, wore the long Asiatic robe, and the Tartar beard; and suchwas the opposition made by the people, that he was obliged tocompromise the matter, and compelled all who would wear beards androbes to pay a heavy tax, except priests and peasants: having grantedthe indulgence to priests on account of the ceremonial of theirworship, and to peasants in order to render their costume ignominious. 

His next important measure was the toleration of all religions, andall sects, with the exception of the Jesuits, whom he hated andfeared. He caused the Bible to be translated into the Sclavoniclanguage; founded a school for the marine, and also institutions forthe encouragement of literature and art. He abolished the old andodious laws of marriage, by which women had no liberty in the choiceof husbands. He suppressed all useless monasteries; taxed the clergyas well as the laity; humiliated the patriarch, and assumed many ofhis powers. He improved the administration of justice, mitigated lawsin relation to woman, and raised her social rank. He establishedpost-offices, boards of trade, a vigorous police, hospitals andalmshouses. He humbled the nobility, and abolished many of theirprivileges; for which the people honored him, and looked upon him astheir benefactor. 

Having organized his army, and effected social reforms, he turned hisattention to war and national aggrandizement. 

[Sidenote: His War with Charles XII. ]

[Sidenote: Charles XII. ]

His first war was with Sweden, then the most powerful of the northernstates, and ruled by Charles XII. , who, at the age of eighteen, hadjust ascended the throne. The _cause_ of the war was the desire ofaggrandizement on the part of the czar; the _pretence_ was, therestitution of some lands which Sweden had obtained from Denmarkand Poland. Taking advantage of the defenceless state ofSweden, --attacked, at that time, by Denmark on the one side, and byPoland on the other, --Peter invaded the territories of Charles with anarmy of sixty thousand men, and laid siege to Narva. The Swedishforces were only twenty thousand; but they were veterans, and theywere headed by a hero. Notwithstanding the great disproportion betweenthe contending parties, the Russians were defeated, although attackedin their intrenchments, and all the artillery fell into the hands ofthe Swedes. The victory at Narva settled the fame of Charles, butintoxicated his mind, and led to a presumptuous self-confidence; whilethe defeat of Peter did not discourage him, but braced him to makestill greater exertions--one of the numerous instances, so often seenin human life, where defeat is better than victory. But the czar wasconscious of his strength, and also of his weakness. He knew he hadunlimited resources, but that his troops were inexperienced; and hemade up his mind for disasters at the beginning, in the hope ofvictory in the end. "I know very well, " said he, "that the Swedes willhave the advantage over us for a considerable time; but they willteach us, at length, to beat them. " The Swede, on the other hand, wasintoxicated with victory, and acquired that fatal presumption whichfinally proved disastrous to himself and to his country. He despisedhis adversary; while Peter, without overrating his victorious enemy, was led to put forth new energies, and develop the great resources ofhis nation. He was sure of final success; and he who can be sustainedby the consciousness of ultimate triumph, can ever afford to wait. Itis the spirit which sustains the martyr. It constitutes thedistinguishing element of enthusiasm and exalted heroism. 

But Peter not only made new military preparations, but prosecuted hisschemes of internal improvement, and projected, after his unfortunatedefeat at Narva, the union, by a canal, of the Baltic and CaspianSeas. About this time, he introduced into Russia flocks of Saxonysheep, erected linen and paper manufactories, built hospitals, andinvited skilful mechanics, of all trades, to settle in his kingdom. But Charles thought only of war and glory, and did not reconstruct orreproduce. He pursued his military career by invading Poland, thenruled by the Elector of Saxony; while Peter turned his attention tothe organization of new armies, melting bells into cannon, constructing fleets, and attending to all the complicated cares of amighty nation with the most minute assiduity. He drew plans offortresses, projected military reforms, and inspired his soldiers withhis own enthusiasm. And his energy and perseverance were soonrewarded. He captured Marianburgh, a strong city on the confines ofLivonia and Ingria, and among the captives was a young peasant girl, who eventually became the Empress Catharine, and to whose counselsPeter was much indebted for his great success. 

She was the daughter of a poor woman of Livonia; lost her mother atthe age of three years; and, at that early age, attracted the noticeof the parish clerk, a Lutheran clergyman: was brought up with his owndaughters, and married a young sergeant of the army, who was killed inthe capture of the city. She interested the Russian general, by herintense grief and great beauty; was taken into his family, and, soonafter, won the favor of Prince Menzikoff, the prime minister of theczar; became mistress of his palace; there beheld Peter himself, captivated him, and was married to him, --at first privately, andafterwards publicly. Her rise, from so obscure a position, in adistant country town, to be the wife of the absolute monarch of anempire of thirty-three millions of people, is the most extraordinaryin the history of the world. When she enslaved the czar by the powerof her charms, she was only seventeen years of age; two years afterthe foundations of St. Petersburg were laid. 

[Sidenote: Building of St. Petersburg. ]

The building of this great northern capital was as extraordinary asthe other great acts of this monarch. Amid the marshes, at the mouthof the Neva, a rival city to the ancient metropolis of the empirearose in five months. But one hundred thousand people perished duringthe first year, in consequence of the severity of their labors, andthe pestilential air of the place. The new city was an object of asgreat disgust to the nobles of Russia and the inhabitants of the oldercities, as it was the delight and pride of the czar, who made it thecapital of his vast dominions. And the city was scarcely built, beforeits great commercial advantages were appreciated; and vessels from allparts of the world, freighted with the various treasures of itsdifferent kingdoms and countries, appeared in the harbor of Cronstadt. 

Charles XII. Looked with contempt on the Herculean labors of his rivalto civilize and enrich his country, and remarked "that the czar mightamuse himself as he saw fit in building a city, but that he shouldsoon take it from him, and set fire to his wooden house;" a bombasticboast, which, like most boasting, came most signally to nought. 

[Sidenote: New War with Sweden. ]

Indeed, success now turned in favor of Peter, whose forces had beenconstantly increasing, while those of Charles had been decreasing. City after city fell into the hands of Peter, and whole provinces wereconquered from Sweden. Soon all Ingria was added to the empire of theczar, the government of which was intrusted to Menzikoff, a man ofextraordinary abilities raised from obscurity, as a seller of pies inthe streets of Moscow to be a prince of the empire. His elevation wasa great mortification to the old and proud nobility. But Peter notonly endeavored to reward and appropriate merit, but to humble the oldaristocracy, who were averse to his improvements. And Peter was ascold and haughty to them, as he was free and companionable with hismeanest soldiers. All great despots are indifferent to grades of rank, when their own elevation is above envy or the reach of ambition. Thereward of merit by the czar, if it alienated the affections of hisnobles, increased the veneration and enthusiasm of the people, whoare, after all, the great permanent foundation on which absolute powerrests; illustrated by the empire of the popes, as well as thedespotism of Napoleon. 

While Peter contended, with various success, with the armies ofSweden, he succeeded in embroiling Sweden in a war with Poland, and indiverting Charles from the invasion of Russia. Had Charles, at first, and perseveringly, concentrated all his strength in an invasion ofRussia, he might have changed the politics of Europe. But he wasinduced to invade Poland, and soon drove the luxurious and cowardlymonarch from his capital and throne, and then turned towards Russia, to play the part of Alexander. But he did not find a Darius in theczar, who was ready to meet him, at the head of immense armies. 

The Russian forces amounted to one hundred thousand men; the Swedishto eighty thousand, and they were veterans. Peter did not venture torisk the fate of his empire, by a pitched battle, with such an army ofvictorious troops. So he attempted a stratagem, and succeeded. Hedecoyed the Swedes into a barren and wasted territory; and Charles, instead of marching to Moscow, as he ought to have done, followed hisexpected prey where he could get no provisions for his men, or foragefor his horses. Exhausted by fatigue and famine, his troops drooped inthe pursuit, and even suffered themselves to be diverted into stillmore barren sections. Under these circumstances, they were defeated ina disastrous battle. Charles, struck with madness, refused to retreat. Disasters multiplied. The victorious Russians hung upon his rear. TheCossacks cut off his stragglers. The army of eighty thousand meltedaway to twenty-five thousand. Still the infatuated Swede dreamed ofvictory, and expected to see the troops of his enemy desert. Thewinter set in with its northern severity, and reduced still furtherhis famished troops. He lost time by marches and counter-marches, without guides, and in the midst of a hostile population. At last hereached Pultowa, a village on the banks of the Vorskla. Peter hastenedto meet him, with an army of sixty thousand, and one of the bloodiestbattles in the history of war was fought. The Swedes performedmiracles of valor. But valor could do nothing against overwhelmingstrength. A disastrous defeat was the result, and Charles, with a fewregiments, escaped to Turkey. 

Had the battle of Pultowa been decided differently; had Charlesconquered instead of Peter, or had Peter lost his life, the empire ofRussia would probably have been replunged into its original barbarism, and the balance of power, in Europe, been changed. 

[Sidenote: War with the Turks. ]

But Providence, which ordained the civilization of Russia, alsoordained that the triumphant czar should not be unduly aggrandized, and should himself learn lessons of humility. The Turks, inconsequence of the intrigues of Charles, and their hereditaryjealousy, made war upon Peter, and advanced against him with an armyof two hundred and fifty thousand men. His own army was composed ofonly forty thousand. He was also indiscreet, and soon found himself inthe condition of Charles at Pultowa. On the banks of the Pruth, inMoldavia, he was surrounded by the whole Turkish force, and famine orsurrender seemed inevitable. It was in this desperate and deplorablecondition that he was rescued by the Czarina Catharine, by whoseaddress a treaty was made with his victorious enemy, and Peter wasallowed to retire with his army. Charles XII. Was indignant beyondmeasure with the Turkish general, for granting such easy conditions, when he had the czar in his power; and to his reproaches the vizier ofthe sultan replied, "I have a right to make peace or war; and our lawcommands us to grant peace to our enemies, when they implore ourclemency. " Charles replied with an insult; and, though a fugitive inthe Turkish camp, he threw himself on a sofa, contemptuously cast hiseye on all present, stretched out his leg, and entangled his spur inthe vizier's robe; which insult the magnanimous Turk affected toconsider an accident. 

After the defeat of Peter on the banks of the Pruth, he devotedhimself with renewed energy to the improvement of his country. Heembellished St. Petersburg, his new capital, with palaces, churches, and arsenals. He increased his army and navy, strengthened himself bynew victories, and became gradually master of both sides of the Gulfof Finland, by which his vast empire was protected from invasion. 

[Sidenote: Peter Makes a Second Tour. ]

He now reached the exalted height to which he had long aspired. Heassumed the title of _emperor_, and his title was universallyacknowledged. He then meditated a second tour of Europe, with a viewto study the political constitutions of the various states. Thirteenyears had elapsed, since, as a young enthusiast, he had visitedAmsterdam and London. He now travelled, a second time, with theadditional glory of a great name, and in the full maturity of hismind. He visited Hamburg, Stockholm, Lubec, Amsterdam, and Paris. Atthis latter place he was much noticed. Wherever he went, his coursewas a triumphal procession. But he disdained flattery, and was weariedwith pompous ceremonies. He could not be flattered out of hissimplicity, or the zeal of acquiring useful knowledge. He visited allthe works of art, and was particularly struck with the Gobelintapestries and the tomb of Richelieu. "Great man, " said he, apostrophizing his image, "I would give half of my kingdom to learn ofthee how to govern the other half. " His residence in Paris inspiredall classes with profound respect; and from Paris he went to Berlin. There he found sympathy with Frederic William, whose tastes andcharacter somewhat resembled his own; and from him he learned manyuseful notions in the art of government. But he was suddenly recalledfrom Berlin by the bad conduct of his son Alexis, who was the heir tohis throne. He was tried, condemned, disgraced, humiliated, anddisinherited. He probably would have been executed by his hard andrigorous father, had he not died in prison. He was hostile to hisfather's plans of reform, and indecently expressed a wish for hisdeath. The conduct of Peter towards him is generally considered harshand unfeeling; but it has many palliations, if the good of hissubjects and the peace of the realm are more to be desired than thelife of an ignominious prince. 

Peter prosecuted his wars and his reforms. The treaty of Neustadtsecured to Russia, after twenty years of unbroken war, a vast increaseof territory, and placed her at the head of the northern powers. Theemperor also enriched his country by opening new branches of trade, constructing canals, rewarding industry, suppressing gambling andmendicity, introducing iron and steel manufacture, building cities, and establishing a vigorous police. 

[Sidenote: Elevation of Catharine. ]

After having settled the finances and trade of his empire, subdued hisenemies at home and abroad, and compelled all the nobles and clergy toswear fealty to the person whom he should select as his successor, heappointed his wife, Catharine; and she was solemnly crowned empress in1724, he himself, at her inauguration, walking on foot, as captain ofher guard. He could not have made a better choice, as she was, in allsubstantial respects, worthy of the exalted position to which she wasraised. 

In about a year after, he died, leaving behind him his principles anda mighty name. Other kings have been greater generals; but few havederived from war greater success. Some have commanded larger armies;but he created those which he commanded. Many have destroyed; but hereconstructed. He was a despot, but ruled for the benefit of hiscountry. He was disgraced by violent passions, his cruelty wassanguinary, and his tastes were brutal; but his passions did notdestroy his judgment, nor his appetites make him luxurious. He wasincessantly active and vigilant, his prejudices were few, and hisviews tolerant and enlightened. He was only cruel when his authoritywas impeached. His best portraiture is in his acts. He found a countrysemi-barbarous, convulsed by disorders, a prey to petty tyrannies, weak from disunion, and trembling before powerful neighbors. He leftit a first-class power, freed in a measure from its barbarous customs, improved in social life, in arts, in science, and, perhaps, in morals. He left a large and disciplined army, a considerable navy, andnumerous institutions for the civilization of the people. He leftmore--the moral effect of a great example, of a man in the possessionof unbounded riches and power, making great personal sacrifices toimprove himself in the art of governing for the welfare of themillions over whom he was called to rule. These virtues and these actshave justly won for him the title of Peter the _Great_--a title whichthe world has bestowed upon but few of the great heroes of ancient ormodern times. 

 * * * * *

[Sidenote: Early History of Sweden. ]

The reign of Charles XII. Is intimately connected with that of Peterthe Great; these monarchs being contemporaries and rivals, bothreigning in northern countries of great extent and comparativebarbarism. The reign of Peter was not so exclusively military as thatof Charles, with whom war was a passion and a profession. The interestattached to Charles arises more from his eccentricities and brilliantmilitary qualities, than from any extraordinary greatness of mind orheart. He was barbarous in his manners, and savage in his resentments;a stranger to the pleasures of society, obstinate, revengeful, unsympathetic, and indifferent to friendship and hatred. But he wasbrave, temperate, generous, intrepid in danger, and firm inmisfortune. 

Before his singular career can be presented, attention must bedirected to the country over which he reigned, and which will benoticed in connection with Denmark; these two countries forming agreater part of the ancient Scandinavia, from which our Teutonicancestors migrated, the land of Odin, and Frea, and Thor, thosehalf-fabulous deities, concerning whom there are still dividedopinions; some supposing that they were heroes, and others, impersonations of virtues, or elements and wonders of nature. The mythology of Greece does not more fully abound with gods andgoddesses, than that of the old Scandinavia with rude deities, --dwarfs, and elfs, and mountain spirits. It was in these northern regions thatthe Normans acquired their wild enthusiasm, their supernatural daring, and their magnificent superstitions. It was from these regions thatthe Saxons brought their love of liberty, their spirit of enterprise, and their restless passion for the sea. The ancient Scandinavians wereheroic, adventurous, and chivalrous robbers, holding their women ingreat respect, and profoundly reverential in their notions of asupreme power. They were poor in silver, in gold, in the fruits of theearth, in luxuries, and in palaces, but rich in poetic sentiments andin religious ideas. Their chief vices were those of gluttony andintemperance, and their great pleasures were those of hunting andgambling. 

Fabulous as are most of their legends as to descent, still Scandinaviawas probably peopled with hardy races before authentic historycommences. Under different names, and at different times, they invadedthe Roman empire. In the fifth century, they had settled in itsdesolated provinces--the Saxons in England, the Goths in Spain andItaly, the Vandals in Africa, the Burgundians in France, and theLombards in Italy. 

Among the most celebrated of these northern Teutonic nations were thepirates who invaded England and France, under the name of _Northmen_. They came from Denmark, and some of their chieftains won a great namein their generation, such as Harold, Canute, Sweyn, and Rollo. 

[Sidenote: Introduction of Christianity. ]

Christianity was probably planted in Sweden about the middle of theninth century. St. Anscar, a Westphalian monk, was the firstsuccessful missionary, and he was made Archbishop of Hamburg, andprimate of the north. 

The early history of the Swedes and Danes resembles that of Englandunder the Saxon princes, and they were disgraced by the same greatnational vices. During the Middle Ages, no great character appearedworthy of especial notice. Some of the more powerful kings, such asValdemar I. And II. , and Canute VI. , had quarrels with the Emperors ofGermany, and invaded some provinces of their empire. Some of theseprinces were warriors, some cruel tyrants, none very powerful, and allcharacterized by the vices of their age--treachery, hypocrisy, murder, drunkenness, and brutal revenge. 

The most powerful of these kings was Christian I. , who founded thedynasty of Oldenburgh, and who united under his sway the kingdoms ofDenmark, Sweden, and Norway. He reigned from 1448 to 1481; and in hisfamily the crown of Sweden remained until the revolution effected byGustavus Vasa, in 1525, and by which revolution Sweden was madeindependent of Denmark. 

[Sidenote: Gustavus Vasa. ]

Gustavus Vasa was a nobleman descended from the ancient kings ofSweden, and who, from the oppression to which his country wassubjected by Christian and the Archbishop of Upsal, was forced to seekrefuge amid the forests of Dalecarlia. When Stockholm was pillaged andher noblest citizens massacred by the cruel tyrant of the country, Gustavus headed an insurrection, defeated the king's forces, and wasmade king himself by the Diet. He, perceiving that the Catholic clergywere opposed to the liberties and the great interests of his country, seized their fortresses and lands, became a convert to the doctrine ofthe reformers, and introduced Lutheranism into the kingdom, which hasever since been the established religion of Sweden. He was despotic inhis government, but ruled for the good of his subjects, and wasdistinguished for many noble qualities. 

The celebrated Gustavus Adolphus was his descendant, and was moreabsolute and powerful than even Gustavus Vasa. But he is chieflymemorable as the great hero of the Thirty Years' War, and as thegreatest general of his age. Under his sway, Sweden was the mostpowerful of the northern kingdoms. 

He was succeeded by his daughter Christina, a woman of mostextraordinary qualities; a woman of genius, of taste, and of culture;a woman who, at twenty-seven, became wearied of the world, and of theenjoyment of unlimited power, and who changed her religion, retiredfrom her country, and abdicated her throne, that she might, unmolested, enjoy the elegant pleasures of Rome, and be solaced by theliterature, religion, and art of that splendid capital. It was in thesociety of men of genius that she spent most of her time, and was thelife of the most intellectual circle which then existed in Europe. 

She was succeeded by her cousin, who was elected King of Sweden, bythe title of _Charles Gustavus X. _, and he was succeeded by CharlesXI. , the father of Charles XII. 

Charles XII. Was fifteen years of age when he came to the throne, inthe year 1697, and found his country strong in resources, and his armythe best disciplined in Europe. His territories were one third largerthan those of France when ruled by Louis XIV. , though not so thicklypopulated. 

[Sidenote: Early Days of Charles XII. ]

The young monarch, at first, gave but few indications of theremarkable qualities which afterwards distinguished him. He was idle, dissipated, haughty, and luxurious. When he came to the councilchamber, he was absent and indifferent, and generally sat with bothlegs thrown across the table. 

But his lethargy and indifference did not last long. Three greatmonarchs had conspired to ruin him, and dismember his kingdom. Thesewere the Czar Peter, Frederic IV. Of Denmark, and Frederic Augustus, King of Poland, and also Elector of Saxony; and their hostile armieswere on the point of invading his country. 

The greatness of the danger brought to light his great qualities. Hevigorously prepared for war. His whole character changed. QuintusCurtius became his text-book, and Alexander his model. He spent notime in sports or magnificence. He clothed himself like a commonsoldier, whose hardships he resolved henceforth to share. He forsworethe society and the influence of woman. He relinquished wine and allthe pleasures of the table. Love of glory became his passion, andcontinued through life; and this ever afterwards made him insensibleto reproach, danger, toil, fear, hunger, and pain. Never was a morecomplete change effected in a man's moral character; and never was animproved moral character consecrated to a worse end. He was notdevoted to the true interests of his country, but to a selfish, base, and vain passion for military fame. 

But his conduct, at first, called forth universal admiration. Hisglorious and successful defence against enemies apparentlyoverwhelming gave him a great military reputation, and secured for himthe sympathies of Christendom. Had he died when he had repelled theRussian, the Danish, and the Polish armies, he would have secured ashonorable an immortality as that of Gustavus Adolphus. But he was notpermitted to die prematurely, as was his great ancestor. He lived longenough to become intoxicated with success, to make great politicalblunders, and to suffer the most fatal and mortifying misfortunes. 

The commencement of his military career was beautifully heroic. "Gentlemen, " said the young monarch of eighteen to his counsellors, when he meditated desperate resistance, "I am resolved never to beginan unjust war, and never to finish a just one but with the destructionof my enemies. "

[Sidenote: Charles's Heroism. ]

In six weeks he finished, after he had begun, the Danish war havingcompletely humbled his enemy, and succored his brother-in-law, theDuke of Holstein. 

His conflict with Peter has been presented, when with twenty thousandmen he attacked and defeated sixty thousand Russians in theirintrenchments, took one hundred and fifty pieces of cannon, and killedeighteen thousand men. The victory of Narva astonished all Europe, andwas the most brilliant which had then been gained in the annals ofmodern warfare. 

Charles was equally successful against Frederic Augustus. He routedhis Saxon troops, and then resolved to dethrone him, as King ofPoland. And he succeeded so far as to induce the Polish Diet toproclaim the throne vacant. Augustus was obliged to fly, andStanislaus Leczinski was chosen king in his stead, at the nominationof the Swedish conqueror. The country was subjugated, and FredericAugustus became a fugitive. 

But Charles was not satisfied with expelling him from Poland. Heresolved to attack him also in Saxony itself. Saxony was then, next toAustria, the most powerful of the German states. Nevertheless, Saxonycould not arrest the victorious career of Charles. The Saxons fled ashe approached. He penetrated to the heart of the electorate, and theunfortunate Frederic Augustus was obliged to sue for peace, which wasonly granted on the most humiliating terms; which were, that theelector should acknowledge Stanislaus as king of Poland; that heshould break all his treaties with Russia, and should deliver to theKing of Sweden all the men who had deserted from his army. The humbledelector sought a personal interview with Charles, after he had signedthe conditions of peace, with the hope of securing better terms. Hefound Charles in his jack boots, with a piece of black taffeta roundhis neck for a cravat, and clothed in a coarse blue coat with brassbuttons. His conversation turned wholly on his jack boots; and thistrifling subject was the only one on which he would deign to conversewith one of the most accomplished monarchs of his age. 

Charles had now humbled and defeated all his enemies. He should nowhave returned to Sweden, and have cultivated the arts of peace. Butpeace and civilization were far from his thoughts. The subjugation ofall the northern powers became the dream of his life. He invadedRussia, resolved on driving Peter from his throne. 

[Sidenote: His Misfortunes. ]

He was eminently successful in defensive war, and eminentlyunsuccessful in aggressive war. Providence benevolently but singularlycomes to the aid of all his children in distress and despair. Men aregloriously strong in defending their rights; but weak, in all theirstrength, when they assail the rights of others. So signal is thisfact, that it blazes upon all the pages of history, and is illustratedin common life as well as in the affairs of nations. 

When Charles turned as an assailant of the rights of his enemies, hisunfortunate reverses commenced. At the head of forty-three thousandveterans, loaded with the spoils of Poland and Saxony, he commencedhis march towards Russia. He had another army in Poland of twentythousand, and another in Finland of fifteen thousand. With these heexpected to dethrone the czar. 

His mistakes and infatuation have been noticed, and his final defeatat Pultowa, a village at the eastern extremity of the Ukraine. Thisbattle was more decisive than that of Narva; for in the latter thecareer of Peter was only arrested, but in the former the strength ofCharles was annihilated. And so would have been his hopes, had he beenan ordinary man. But he was a madman, and still dreamed of victory, with only eighteen hundred men to follow his fortunes into Turkey, which country he succeeded in reaching. 

His conduct in Turkey was infamous and extraordinary. No reasoningscan explain it. It was both ridiculous and provoking. At first, heemployed himself in fomenting quarrels, and devising schemes to embarkthe sultan in his cause. Vizier after vizier was flattered andassailed. He rejected every overture for his peaceable return. Helingered five years in endless intrigues and negotiations, in order torealize the great dream of his life--the dethronement of the czar. Helived recklessly on the bounty of the sultan, taking no hints thateven imperial hospitality might be abused and exhausted. At last, hisinflexible obstinacy and dangerous intrigues so disgusted his generoushost, that he was urged to return, with the offer of a suitableescort, and a large sum of money. He accepted and spent the twelvehundred purses, and still refused to return. The displeasure of theSultan Achmet was now fairly excited. It was resolved upon by thePorte that he should be removed by force, since he would not bepersuaded. But Charles resisted the troops of the sultan who wereordered to remove him. With sixty servants he desperately defendedhimself against an army of janizaries, and killed twenty of them withhis own hand; and it was not until completely overwhelmed andprostrated that he hurled his sword into the air. He was now aprisoner of war, and not a guest; but still he was treated with thecourtesy and dignity due to a king, and conducted in a chariot coveredwith gold and scarlet to Adrianople. From thence he was removed toDemotica, where he renewed his intrigues, and zealously kept his bed, under pretence of sickness, for ten months. 

While he remained in captivity, Frederic Augustus recovered the crownof Poland, King Stanislaus was taken by the Turks, and Peter continuedhis conquest of Ingria, Livonia, and Finland, provinces belonging toSweden. The King of Prussia also invaded Pomerania, and Frederic IV. Of Denmark claimed Bremen, Holstein, and Scania. The Swedes weredivested of all their conquests, and one hundred and fifty thousand ofthem became prisoners in foreign lands. 

Such were the reverses of a man who had resolved to play the part ofAlexander, but who, so long as he contented himself with defending hiscountry against superior forces, was successful, and won a fame sogreat, that his misfortunes could never reduce him to contempt. 

[Sidenote: Charles's Return to Sweden. ]

When all was lost, he signified to the Turkish vizier his desire toreturn to Sweden. The vizier neglected no means to rid his master ofso troublesome a person. Charles returned to his country impoverished, but not discouraged. The charm of his name was broken. His soldierswere as brave and devoted as ever, but his resources were exhausted. He succeeded, however, in raising thirty-five thousand men, in orderto continue his desperate game of conquest, not of defence. Europebeheld the extraordinary spectacle of this infatuated hero passing, inthe depth of a northern winter, over the frozen hills and ice-boundrocks of Norway, with his devoted army, in order to conquer thathyperborean region. So inured was he to cold and fatigue, that heslept in the open air on a bed of straw, covered only with his cloak, while his soldiers dropped down dead at their posts from cold. In themonth of December, 1718, he commenced the siege of Fredericshall, aplace of great strength and importance, but, having exposed himselfunnecessarily, was killed by a ball from the fortress. Many, however, suppose that he was assassinated by his own officers who were weariedwith endless war, from which they saw nothing but disaster to theirexhausted country. 

[Sidenote: His Death. ]

His death was considered as a signal for the general cessation ofarms; but Sweden never recovered from the mad enterprises ofCharles XII. It has never since been a first class power. The nationalfinances were disordered, the population decimated, and the provincesdismembered. Peter the Great gained what his rival lost. We cannot butcompassionate a nation that has the misfortune to be ruled by such anabsolute and infatuated monarch as was Charles XII. He did nothing forthe civilization of his subjects, or to ameliorate the evils hecaused. He was, like Alaric or Attila, a scourge of the Almighty, senton earth for some mysterious purpose, to desolate and to destroy. Buthe died unlamented and unhonored. No great warrior in modern times hasreceived so little sympathy from historians, since he was not exaltedby any great moral qualities of affection or generosity, andunscrupulously sacrificed both friends and enemies to gratify aselfish and a depraved passion. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Voltaire's History of Russia, a very attractive book, on account of its lively style. Voltaire's Life of Charles XII. , also, is equally fascinating. There are tolerable histories of both Russia and Sweden in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia; also in the Family Library. See, also, a History of Russia and Sweden in the Universal History. Russell's Modern Europe. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

GEORGE I. , AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR ROBERT WALPOLE. 

[Sidenote: Accession of George I. ]

Queen Anne died in 1714, soon after the famous treaty of Utrecht wasmade, and by which the war of the Spanish Succession was closed. Shewas succeeded by George I. , Elector of Hanover. He was grandson ofElizabeth, only daughter of James I. , who had married Frederic, theKing of Bohemia. He was fifty-four years of age when he ascended theEnglish throne, and imperfectly understood the language of the nationwhom he was called upon to govern. 

George I. Was not a sovereign who materially affected the interests ordestiny of England; nor was he one of those interesting charactersthat historians love to delineate. It is generally admitted that hewas respectable, prudent, judicious, and moral; amiable in his temper, sincere in his intercourse, and simple in his habits, --qualities whichcommand respect, but not those which dazzle the people. It is supposedthat he tolerably understood the English Constitution, and was willingto be fettered by the restraints which the parliaments imposed. Hesupported the Whigs, --the dominant party of the time, --and sympathizedwith liberal principles, so far as a monarch can be supposed toadvance the interests of the people, and the power of a class everhostile to the prerogatives of royalty. He acquiesced in the rule ofhis ministers--just what was expected of him, and just what was wantedof him; and became--what every King of England, when popular, hassince been--the gilded puppet of a powerful aristocracy. His socialand constitutional influence was not, indeed, annihilated; he had thechoice of ministers, and collected around his throne the great andproud, who looked to him as the fountain of all honor and dignity. But, still, from the accession of the house of Hanover the politicalhistory of England is a history of the acts of parliaments, and ofthose ministers who represented the dominant parties of the nation. Few nobles were as great as some under the Tudor and Stuart princes;but the power of the aristocracy, as a class, was increased. From thetime of George I. To Queen Victoria, the ascendency of the parliamentshas been most marked composed chiefly of nobles, great landedproprietors, and gigantic commercial monopolists. The people have notbeen, indeed, unheard or unrepresented; but, literally speaking, havehad but a feeble influence, compared with the aristocracy. Parliamentsand ministers, therefore, may be not unjustly said to be therepresentatives of the aristocracy--of the wise, the mighty, and thenoble. 

When power passes from kings to nobles, then the acts of noblesconstitute the genius of political history, as fully as the acts ofkings constitute history when kings are absolute, and the acts of thepeople constitute history where the people are all-powerful. 

[Sidenote: Sir Robert Walpole. ]

A notice, therefore, of that great minister who headed the Whig partyof aristocrats, and who, as their organ, swayed the councils ofEngland for nearly forty years, demands our attention. His politicalcareer commenced during the reign of Anne, and continued during thereign of George I. , and part of the reign of George II. George I. , asa man or as a king, dwindled into insignificance, when compared withhis prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole. And he is great, chiefly, asthe representative of the Whigs; that is, of the dominant party ofrich and great men who sat in parliament; a party of politicians whoprofessed more liberal principles than the Tories, but who wereequally aristocratic in the social sympathies, and powerful fromaristocratic connections. What did the great Dukes of Devonshire orBedford care for the poor people, who, politically, composed no partof the nation? But they were Whigs, and King George himself was aWhig. 

Sir Robert belonged to an ancient, wealthy, and honorable family; wasborn 1676, and received his first degree at King's College, Cambridge, in 1700. He entered parliament almost immediately after, became anactive member, sat on several committees, and soon distinguishedhimself for his industry and ability. He was not eloquent, butacquired considerable skill as a debater. In 1705, Lord Godolphin, theprime minister of Anne, made him one of the council to Prince Georgeof Denmark; in 1706, Marlborough selected him as secretary of war; in1709, he was made treasurer of the navy; and in 1710, he was theacknowledged leader of the House of Commons. He lost office, however, when the Whigs lost power, in 1710; was subjected to cruel politicalpersecution, and even impeached, and imprisoned in the Tower. Thisperiod is memorable for the intense bitterness and severe conflictsbetween the Whigs and Tories; not so much on account of difference ofopinion on great political principles, as the struggle for thepossession of place and power. 

On the accession of George I. , Walpole became paymaster of the forces, one of the most lucrative offices in the kingdom. Townshend was madesecretary of state. The other great official dignitaries were theLords Cowper, Marlborough, Wharton, Sunderland, Devonshire, Oxford, andSomerset; but Townshend and Walpole were the most influential. Theyimpeached their great political enemies, Ormond and Bolingbroke, themost distinguished leaders of the Tory party. Bolingbroke, in geniusand learning, had no equal in parliament, and was a rival of Walpoleat Eton. 

[Sidenote: The Pretender. ]

The first event of importance, under the new ministry, was theinvasion of Great Britain by the Pretender--the Prince James FredericEdward Stuart, only son of James II. His early days were spent at St. Germain's, the palace which the dethroned monarch enjoyed by thehospitality of Louis XIV. He was educated under influences entirelyunfavorable to the recovery of his natural inheritance, and was adevotee to the pope and the interests of absolutism. But he had hisadherents, who were called _Jacobites_, and who were chiefly to befound in the Highlands of Scotland. In 1705, an unsuccessful efforthad been made to regain the throne of his father, but the disastersattending it prevented him from milking any renewed effort until thedeath of Anne. 

When she died, many discontented Tories fanned the spirit ofrebellion; and Bishop Atterbury, a distinguished divine, advocated theclaims of the Pretender. Scotland was ripe for revolt. Alarming riotstook place in England. William III. Was burned in effigy atSmithfield. The Oxford students pulled down a Presbyterianmeeting-house, and the sprig of oak was publicly displayed on the 29thof May. The Earl of Mar hurried into Scotland to fan the spirit ofinsurrection; while the gifted, brilliant, and banished Bolingbrokejoined the standard of the chevalier. The venerable and popular Dukeof Ormond also assisted him with his counsels. 

[Sidenote: Invasion of Scotland. ]

Advised by these great nobles, assisted by the King of France, andflattered by the Jacobite faction, the Pretender made preparations torecover his rights. His prospects were apparently better than werethose of William, when he landed in England. The Earl of Mar was atthe head of ten thousand men; but the chevalier was no general, andwas unequal to his circumstances. When he landed in Scotland, hesurrendered himself to melancholy and inaction. His sadness andpusillanimity dispirited his devoted band of followers. He retreatedbefore inferior forces, and finally fled from the country which he hadinvaded. The French king was obliged to desert his cause, and thePretender retreated to Italy, and died at the advanced age ofseventy-nine, after witnessing the defeat of his son, Charles Edward, whose romantic career and misfortunes cannot now be mentioned. By theflight of the Pretender from Scotland, in 1715, the insurrection waseasily suppressed, and the country was not molested by the intriguesof the Stuart princes for thirty years. 

The year which followed the invasion of Scotland was signalized by thepassage of a great bill in parliament, which is one of the mostimportant events in parliamentary history. In 1716, the famousSeptennial Act, which prolonged parliament from three to seven years, was passed. So many evils, practically, resulted from frequentelections, that the Whigs resolved to make a change; and the changecontributed greatly to the tranquillity of the country, and theestablishment of the House of Brunswick. The duration of the Englishparliament has ever since, constitutionally, been extended to sevenyears, but the average duration of parliaments has been six years--theterm of office of the senators of the United States. 

After the passage of the Septennial Act, the efforts of Walpole weredirected to a reduction of the national debt. He was then secretary ofthe treasury. But before he could complete his financial reforms, hewas driven from office by the cabals of his colleagues, and theinfluence of the king's German favorites and mistresses. The Earl ofSunderland, who had married a daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, wasat the head of the cabal party, and was much endeared to the Whigs byhis steady attachment to their principles. He had expected, andprobably deserved, to be placed at the head of the administration. When disappointed, he bent all his energies to undermine Townsend andWalpole, and succeeded for a while. But Walpole's opposition to thenew administration was so powerful, that it did not last long. Sunderland had persuaded the king to renounce his constitutionalprerogative of creating peers; and a bill, called the _Peerage Bill_, was proposed, which limited the House of Lords to its actual existingnumber, the tendency of which was to increase the power and rank ofthe existing peers, and to raise an eternal bar to the aspirations ofall commoners to the peerage, and thus widen the gulf between thearistocracy and the people. Walpole presented these consequences soforcibly, and showed so clearly that the proposed bill would diminishthe consequence of the landed gentry, and prove a grave to honorablemerit, that the Commons were alarmed, and rejected the bill by a largeand triumphant majority of two hundred and sixty-nine to one hundredand seventy-seven. 

The defeat of this bill, and the great financial embarrassments of thecountry, led to the restoration of Walpole to office. His genius waseminently financial, and his talents were precisely those which haveever since been required of a minister--those which characterized SirRobert Peel and William Pitt. The great problem of any government is, how to raise money for its great necessities; and the more complicatedthe relations of society are, the more difficult becomes the problem. 

[Sidenote: The South Sea Bubble. ]

At that period, the English nation were intoxicated and led astray byone of those great commercial delusions which so often take place inall civilized countries. No mania ever was more marked, moreuniversal, and more fatal than that of the South Sea Company. Thebubble had turned the heads of politicians, merchants, and farmers;all classes, who had money to invest, took stock in the South SeaCompany. The delusion, however, passed away; England was left on thebrink of bankruptcy, and a master financier was demanded by thenation, to extricate it from the effects of folly and madness. Alleyes looked to Sir Robert Walpole, and he did all that financial skillcould do, to repair the evils which speculation and gambling hadcaused. 

The desire for sudden wealth is one of the most common passions of ournature, and has given rise to more delusions than religiousfanaticism, or passion for military glory. The South Sea bubble waskindred to that of John Law, who was the author of the MississippiScheme, which nearly ruined France in the reign of Louis XV. , andwhich was encouraged by the Duke of Orleans, as a means of paying offthe national debt. 

[Sidenote: The South Sea Company. ]

The wars of England had created a national debt, under theadministration of Godolphin and Marlborough; but which was not solarge but that hopes were entertained of redeeming it. Walpoleproposed to pay it off by a sinking fund; but this idea, not verypopular, was abandoned. It was then the custom for government toborrow of corporations, rather than of bankers, because the science ofbrokerage was not then understood, and because no individuals weresufficiently rich to aid materially an embarrassed administration. Asa remuneration, companies were indulged with certain commercialadvantages. As these advantages enabled companies to become rich, thenation always found it easy to borrow. During the war of the SpanishSuccession, the prime minister, Harley, afterwards Earl of Oxford, inorder to raise money, projected the South Sea Company. This was in1710, and the public debt was ten million pounds sterling, thought atthat time to be insupportable. The interest on that debt was six percent. In order to liquidate the debt, Oxford made the duties on wines, tobacco, India goods, silks, and a few other articles, permanent. And, to allure the public creditor, great advantages were given to the newcompany, and money was borrowed of it at five per cent. This gain ofone per cent. , by money borrowed from the company, was to constitute asinking fund to pay the debt. 

But the necessities of the nation increased so rapidly, that a leadingpolitician of the day, Sir John Blount, proposed that the South SeaCompany should become the sole national creditor, and should loan tothe government new sums, at an interest of four per cent. Newmonopolies were to be given to the company; and it, on the other hand, offered to give a bonus of three million pounds to the government. TheBank of England, jealous of the proposal, offered five millions. Thedirectors of the company then bid seven millions for a charter, nearlyenough to pay off the whole redeemable debt of the nation; which, however, could not be redeemed, so long as there were, in addition, irredeemable annuities to the amount of eight hundred thousand poundsyearly. It became, therefore, an object of the government to get rid, in the first place, of these irredeemable annuities; and this could beeffected, if the national creditor could be induced to accept ofshares in the South Sea Company, instead of his irredeemableannuities, or, as they are now variously called, consols, stocks, andnational funds. The capital was not desired; only the interest oncapital. So many monopolies and advantages were granted to thecompany, that the stock rose, and the national creditor was willing topart with his annuities for stock in the company. The offer was, therefore, accepted, and the government got rid of irredeemableannuities, and obtained seven millions besides, but became debtor tothe company. A company which could apparently afford to pay so large abonus to government for its charter, and loan such large sums as thenation needed, in addition, at four per cent. , was supposed to bemaking most enormous profits. Its stock rose rapidly in value. Thenational creditor hastened to get rid of irredeemable annuities--anational stock which paid five per cent. --in order to buy shares whichmight pay ten per cent. 

[Sidenote: Opposition of Walpole. ]

Walpole, then paymaster of the forces, opposed the scheme of Blountwith all his might, showed that the acceptance of the company'sproposal would countenance stockjobbing, would divert industry fromits customary channels, and would hold out a dangerous lure to theunsuspecting to part with real for imaginary property. He showed themisery and confusion which existed in France from the adoption ofsimilar measures, and proved that the whole success of the scheme mustdepend on the rise of the company's stock; that, if there were norise, the company could not afford the bonus, and would fail, and theobligation of the nation remain as before. But his reasonings were ofno avail. All classes were infatuated. All people speculated in theSouth Sea stock. And, for a while, all people rejoiced; for, as longas the stock continued to rise, all people were gainers. 

And the stock rose rapidly. It soon reached three hundred per cent. Above the original par value, and this in consequence of the promiseof great dividends. All hastened to buy such lucrative property. Thepublic creditor willingly gave up three hundred pounds of irredeemablestock for one hundred pounds of the company's stock. 

[Sidenote: Mania for Speculation. ]

And this would have been well, had there been a moral certainty of thestockholder receiving a dividend of twenty per cent. But there was notthis certainty, nor even a chance of it. Still, in consequence of thegreat dividends promised, even as high as fifty per cent. , the stockgradually rose to one thousand per cent. Such was the general mania. And such was the extent of it, that thirty-seven millions of poundssterling were subscribed on the company's books. 

And the rage for speculation extended to all other kinds of property;and all sorts of companies were formed, some of the shares of whichwere at a premium of two thousand per cent. There were companiesformed for fisheries, companies for making salt, for making oil, forsmelting metals, for improving the breed of horses, for the plantingof madder, for building ships against pirates, for the importation ofjackasses, for fattening hogs, for wheels of perpetual motion, forinsuring masters against losses from servants. There was one companyfor carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but no one knew forwhat. The subscriber, by paying two guineas as a deposit, was to haveone hundred pounds per annum for every hundred subscribed. It wasdeclared, that, in a month, the particulars were to be laid open, andthe remainder of the subscription money was then to be paid. Notwithstanding this barefaced, swindling scheme, two thousand poundswere received one morning as a deposit. The next day, the proprietorwas not to be found. 

Now, in order to stop these absurd speculations, and yet to monopolizeall the gambling in the kingdom, the directors of the South SeaCompany obtained an act from parliament, empowering them to prosecuteall the various bubble companies that were projected. In a few days, all these bubbles burst. None were found to be buyers. Stock fell tonothing. 

[Sidenote: Bursting of the South Sea Bubble. ]

But the South Sea Company made a blunder. The moral effect of thebursting of so many bubbles was to open the eyes of the nation to thegreatest bubble of all. The credit of the South Sea Company declined. Stocks fell from one thousand per cent to two hundred in a few days. All wanted to sell, nobody to buy. Bankers and merchants failed, andnobles and country gentlemen became impoverished. 

In this general distress, Walpole was summoned to power, in older toextricate the nation, on the eve of bankruptcy. He proposed a plan, which was adopted, and which saved the credit of the nation. Heingrafted nine millions of the South Sea stock into the Bank ofEngland, and nine millions more into the East India Company; andgovernment gave up the seven millions of bonus which the company hadpromised. 

By this assistance, the company was able to fulfil its engagements, although all who purchased stock when it had arisen beyond one hundredper cent. Of its original value, lost money. It is strange that thestock, after all, remained at a premium of one hundred per cent. ; ofcourse, the original proprietors gained one hundred per cent. , andthose who paid one hundred per cent. Premium lost nothing. But theseconstituted a small fraction of the people who had speculated, and whopaid from one hundred to nine hundred per cent. Premium. Government, too, gained by reducing interest on irredeemable bonds from five tofour per cent. , although it lost the promised bonus of seven millions. 

The South Sea bubble did not destroy the rage for speculation, although it taught many useful truths--that national prosperity is notadvanced by stockjobbing; that financiers, however great their genius, generally overreach themselves; that great dividends are connectedwith great risk; that circumstances beyond human control will defeatthe best-laid plan; that it is better to repose upon the operation ofthe ordinary laws of trade; and that nothing but strict integrity andindustry will succeed in the end. From the time of Sir Robert Walpole, money has seldom been worth, in England, over five per cent. , andlarger dividends on vested property have generally been succeeded byheavy losses, however plausible the promises and clear the statementsof stockjobbers and speculators. 

[Sidenote: Enlightened Policy of Walpole. ]

After the explosion of the South Sea Company, Walpole became possessedof almost unlimited power. And one of the first objects to which hedirected attention, after settling the finances, was the removal ofpetty restrictions on commerce. He abolished the export duties on onehundred and six articles of British manufacture, and allowedthirty-eight articles of raw material to be imported duty free. Thisregulation was made to facilitate trade with the colonies, and preventthem from manufacturing; and this regulation accomplished the enddesired. Both England and the colonies were enriched. It was doubtlessthe true policy of British statesmen then, as now, to advance thecommercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of GreatBritain, rather than meddle with foreign wars, or seek glory on thefield of battle. The principles of Sir Robert Walpole were essentiallypacific; and under his administration, England made a great advance insubstantial prosperity. In this policy he surpassed all the statesmenwho preceded or succeeded him, and this constituted his glory andoriginality. 

But liberal and enlightened as was the general course of Walpole, hestill made blunders, and showed occasional illiberality. He caused afine of one hundred thousand pounds to be inflicted on the Catholics, on the plea that they were a disaffected body. He persecuted BishopAtterbury, and permitted Bolingbroke, with his restless spirit ofintrigue, to return to his country, and to be reinstated in hisproperty and titles. He flattered the Duchess of Kendall, the mistressof the king, and stooped to all the arts of corruption and bribery. There never was a period of greater political corruption than duringthe administration of this minister. Sycophancy, meanness, andhypocrisy were resorted to by the statesmen of the age, who generallysought their own interests rather than the welfare of the nation. There were, however, exceptions. Townsend, the great rival andcoadjutor of Walpole, retired from office with an unsullied fame forintegrity and disinterestedness; and Walpole, while he bribed others, did not enrich himself. 

King George I. Died on the 11th of June, 1727, suddenly, by apoplexy, and was succeeded by his son George II. , a man who resembled hisfather in disposition and character, and was superior to him inknowledge of the English constitution, though both were inclined tosteer the British bark by the Hanoverian rudder. Like his father, hewas reserved, phlegmatic, cautious, sincere, fond of business, economical, and attached to Whig principles. He was fortunate in hiswife, Queen Caroline, one of the most excellent women of the age, learned, religious, charitable, and sensible; the patroness of divinesand scholars; fond of discussion on metaphysical subjects, and acorrespondent of the distinguished Leibnitz. 

The new king disliked Walpole, but could not do without him, andtherefore continued him in office. Indeed, the king had the sense toperceive that England was to be governed only by the man in whom thenation had confidence. 

[Sidenote: East India Company. ]

In 1730, Walpole rechartered the East India Company, the most giganticmonopoly in the history of nations. As early as 1599, an associationhad been formed in England for trade to the East Indies. Thisassociation was made in consequence of the Dutch and Portuguesesettlements and enterprises, which aroused the commercial jealousy ofEngland. The capital was sixty-eight thousand pounds. In 1600, QueenElizabeth gave the company a royal charter. By this charter, thecompany obtained the right of purchasing land, without limit, inIndia, and the monopoly of the trade for fifteen years. But thecompany contended with many obstacles. The first voyage was made byfour ships and one pinnace, having on board twenty-eight thousandpounds in bullion, and seven thousand pounds in merchandise, such astin, cutlery, and glass. 

During the civil wars, the company's affairs were embarrassed, owingto the unsettled state of England. On the accession of Charles II. , the company obtained a new charter, which not only confirmed the oldprivileges, but gave it the power of making peace and war with thenative princes of India. The capital stock was increased to onemillion five hundred thousand pounds. 

Much opposition was made by Bolingbroke and the Tories to therecharter of this institution; but the ministry carried their point, and a new charter was granted on the condition of the company payingto government two hundred thousand pounds, and reducing the interestof the government debts one per cent. Per annum. By this time, thecompany, although it had not greatly enlarged its jurisdiction inIndia, had accumulated great wealth. Its powers and possessions willbe more fully treated when the victories of Clive shall be presented. 

About this time, the Duke of Newcastle came into the cabinet whosefuture administration will form the subject of a separate chapter. 

[Sidenote: Resignation of Townsend. ]

In 1730 also occurred the disagreement between Walpole and LordTownsend, which ended in the resignation of the latter, a man whoseimpetuous and frank temper ill fitted him to work with so cautious andnon-committal a statesman as his powerful rival. He passed the eveningof his days in rural pursuits and agricultural experiments, keepingopen house, devoting himself to his family and friends, neverhankering after the power he had lost, never even revisiting London, and finding his richest solace in literature and simple agriculturalpleasures--the pattern of a lofty and cultivated nobleman. 

The resignation of Townsend enabled Walpole to take more part inforeign negotiations; and he exerted his talents, like Fleury inFrance, to preserve the peace of Europe. The peace policy of Walpoleentitles him to the gratitude of his country. More than any other manof his age, he apprehended the true glory and interests of nations. Had Walpole paid as much attention to the intellectual improvement ofhis countrymen, as he did to the refinements of material life and tophysical progress, he would have merited still higher praises. But hedespised learning, and neglected literary men. And they turned againsthim and his administration, and, by their sarcasm and invective, didmuch to undermine his power. Pope, Swift, and Gay might have lent himpowerful aid by their satirical pen; but he passed them by withcontemptuous indifference, and they gave to Bolingbroke what theywithheld from Walpole. 

Next to the pacific policy of the minister, the most noticeablepeculiarity of his administration was his zeal to improve thefinances. He opposed speculations, and sought a permanent revenue fromfixed principles. He regarded the national debt as a great burden, andstrove to abolish it; and, when that was found to be impracticable, sought to prevent its further accumulation. He was not, indeed, alwaystrue to his policy; but he pursued it on the whole, consistently. Hefavored the agricultural interests, and was inclined to raise thenecessary revenue by a tax on articles used, rather than by directtaxation on property or income, or articles imported. Hence he is thefather of the excise scheme--a scheme still adopted in England, butwhich would be intolerable in this country. In this scheme, his grandobject was to ease the landed proprietor, and to prevent smuggling, bymaking smuggling no object. But the opposition to the Excise Bill wasso great that Sir Robert abandoned it; and this relinquishment of hisfavorite scheme is one of the most striking peculiarities of hisadministration. He never pushed matters to extremity. He ever yieldedto popular clamor. He perceived that an armed force would be necessaryin order to collect the excise, and preferred to yield his cherishedmeasures to run the danger of incurring greater evils than financialembarrassments. His spirit of conciliation, often exercised in theplenitude of power, prolonged his reign. This policy was the result ofimmense experience and practical knowledge of human nature, of whichhe was a great master. 

[Sidenote: Unpopularity of Walpole. ]

But Sir Robert was not allowed to pursue to the end his pacific, anymore than his financial policy. The clamors of interested merchants, the violence of party spirit, and the dreams of heroic grandeur on thepart of politicians, overcame the repugnance of the minister, andplunged England in a disastrous Spanish war; and a war soon succeededby that of the Austrian Succession, in which Maria Theresa was theinjured, and Frederic the Great the offending party. But this war, which was carried on chiefly during the subsequent administration, will be hereafter alluded to. 

Although Walpole was opposed by some of the ablest men in England--byPulteney, Sir William Windham, and the Lords Chesterfield, Carteret, and Bolingbroke, his power was almost absolute from 1730 to 1740. Hismost powerful assistance was derived from Mr. Yorke, afterwards theLord Chancellor Hardwicke, one of the greatest lawyers that Englandhas produced. 

[Sidenote: Decline of his Power. ]

In 1740, his power began to decline, and rapidly waned. He lost apowerful friend and protector by the death of Queen Caroline, whoseintercessions with the king were ever listened to with respectfulconsideration. But he had almost insurmountable obstacles to contendwith--the distrust of the king, the bitter hatred of the Prince ofWales, the violent opposition of the leading statesmen in parliament, and universal envy. Moreover, he had grown careless and secure. Hefancied that no one could rule England but himself. But hatred, opposition, envy, and unsuccessful military operations, forced himfrom his place. No shipwrecked pilot ever clung to the rudder of asinking ship with more desperate tenacity than did this once powerfulminister to the helm of state. And he did not relinquish it until hewas driven from it by the desertion of all his friends, and thegeneral clamor of the people. The king, however, appreciated the valueof his services, and created him Earl of Orford, a dignity which hadbeen offered him before, but which, with self-controlling policy, hehad unhesitatingly declined. Like Sir Robert Peel in later times, hedid not wish to be buried in the House of Lords. 

His retirement (1742) amid the beeches and oaks of his country seatwas irksome and insipid. He had no taste for history, or science, orelegant literature, or quiet pleasures. His tumultuous public life hadengendered other tastes. "I wish, " said he to a friend, "I took asmuch delight in reading as you do. It would alleviate my tedioushours. " But the fallen minister, though uneasy and restless, was notbitter or severe. He retained his good humor to the last, and to thelast discharged all the rites of an elegant hospitality. Said hisenemy, Pope, --

 "Seen him I have, but in his happier hour Of social pleasure--ill exchanged for power; Seen him, uncumbered by the venal tribe, Smile without art, and win without a bribe. "

He had the habit of "laughing the heart's laugh, " which it is only inthe power of noble natures to exercise. His manners were winning, hisconversation frank, and his ordinary intercourse divested of vanityand pomp. He had many warm personal friends, and did not enrichhimself, as Marlborough did, while he enriched those who served him. He kept a public table at Houghton, to which all gentlemen in thecountry had free access. He was fond of hunting and country sports, and had more taste for pictures than for books. He was not what wouldbe called a man of genius or erudition, but had a sound judgment, great sagacity, wonderful self-command, and undoubted patriotism. As awise and successful ruler, he will long be held in respect, though hewill never secure veneration. 

It was during the latter years of the administration of Walpole thatEngland was electrified by the preaching of Whitefield and Wesley, andthe sect of the Methodists arose, which has exercised a powerfulinfluence on the morals, religion, and social life of England. 

[Sidenote: John Wesley. ]

John Wesley, who may rank with Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, or Jansen, as the founder of a sect, was demanded by the age in whichhe lived. Never, since the Reformation, was the state of religion socold in England. The Established Church had triumphed over all herenemies. Puritanism had ceased to become offensive, and had evenbecome respectable. The age of fox-hunting parsons had commenced, andthe clergy were the dependants of great families, easy in theirmanners, and fond of the pleasures of the table. They were notexpected to be very great scholars, or very grave companions. If theyread the service with propriety, did not scandalize their cause bygross indulgences, and did not meddle with the two exciting subjectsof all ages, --politics and religion, --they were sure of peace andplenty. But their churches were comparatively deserted, and infidelopinions had been long undermining respect for the institutions andministers of religion. Swearing and drunkenness were fashionable vicesamong the higher classes, while low pleasures and lamentable ignorancecharacterized the people. The dissenting sects were more religious, but were formal and cold. Their ministers preached, too often, a meretechnical divinity, or a lax system of ethics. The Independents wereinclined to a frigid Arminianism, and the Presbyterians were passingthrough the change from ultra Calvinism to Arianism and Socinianism. 

The reformation was not destined to come from Dissenters, but from thebosom of the Established Church, a reformation which bore the samerelation to Protestantism as that effected by St. Francis bore toRoman Catholicism in the thirteenth century; a reformation among thepoorer classes, who did not wish to be separated from the ChurchEstablishment. 

[Sidenote: Early Life of Wesley. ]

John Wesley belonged to a good family, his father being a respectableclergyman in a market town. He was born in 1703, was educated atOxford, and for the church. At the age of twenty, he received ordersfrom the Bishop of Oxford, and was, shortly after, chosen fellow ofLincoln College, and then Greek lecturer. 

While at Oxford, he and his brother Charles, who was also a fellow anda fine scholar, excited the ridicule of the University for thestrictness of their lives, and their methodical way of living, whichcaused their companions to give them the name of _Methodists_. Twoother young men joined them--James Hervey, author of the Meditations, and George Whitefield. The fraternity at length numbered fifteen youngmen, the members of which met frequently for religious purposes, visited prisons and the sick, fasted zealously on Wednesdays andFridays, and bound themselves by rules, which, in many respects, resembled those which Ignatius Loyola imposed on his followers. TheImitation of Christ, by A Kempis, and Taylor's Holy Living, were theirgrand text-books, both of which were studied for their devotionalspirit. But the Holy Living was the favorite book of Wesley, who didnot fully approve of the rigid asceticism of the venerable mystic ofthe Middle Ages. The writings of William Law, also, had greatinfluence on the mind of Wesley; but his religious views were notmatured until after his return from Georgia, where he had labored as amissionary, under the auspices of Oglethorpe. The Moravians, whom hemet with both in America and Germany, completed the work which Taylorhad begun; and from their beautiful establishments he also learnedmany principles of that wonderful system of government which he sosuccessfully introduced among his followers. 

Wesley continued his labors with earnestness; but these were alsoattended with some extravagances, which Dr. Potter, the worthy Bishopof London, and other Churchmen, could not understand. And though hepreached with great popular acceptance, and gained wonderful eclat, though he was much noticed in society and even dined with the king atHampton Court, and with the Prince of Wales at St. James's, still thechurches were gradually shut against him. When Whitefield returnedfrom Georgia, having succeeded Wesley as a missionary in that colony, and finding so much opposition from the dignitaries of the Church, although neither he nor Wesley had seceded from the Church; and, aboveall, excited by the popular favor he received, --for the churches wouldnot hold half who flocked to hear him preach, --he resolved to addressthe people in the open air. The excitement he produced wasunparalleled. Near Bristol, he sometimes assembled as many as twentythousand. But they were chiefly the colliers, drawn forth from theirsubterranean working places. But his eloquence had equal fascinationfor the people of London and the vicinity. In Moorfields, onKennington Common, and on Blackheath, he sometimes drew a crowd offorty thousand people, all of whom could hear his voice. He could drawtears from Hume, and money from Dr. Franklin. He could convulse acongregation with terror, and then inspire them with the brightesthopes. He was a greater artist than Bossuet or Bourdaloue. He neverlost his self-possession, or hesitated for appropriate language. Buthis great power was in his thorough earnestness, and almost inspiredenthusiasm. No one doubted his sincerity, and all were impressed withthe spirituality and reality of the great truths which he presented. And wonderful results followed from his preaching, and from that ofhis brethren. A great religious revival spread over England, especially among the middle and lower classes, the effects of whichlast to this day. 

[Sidenote: Whitefield. ]

Whitefield was not so learned, or intellectual as Wesley. He was notso great a genius. But he had more eloquence, and more warmth ofdisposition. Wesley was a system maker, a metaphysician, a logician. He was also profoundly versed in the knowledge of human nature, andcuriously adapted his system to the wants and circumstances of thatclass of people over whom he had the greatest power. Both Wesley andWhitefield were demanded by their times, and only such men as theywere could have succeeded. They were reproached for theirextravagances, and for a zeal which was confounded with fanaticism;but, had they been more proper, more prudent, more yielding to theprejudices of the great, they would not have effected so much good fortheir country. So with Luther. Had he possessed a severer taste, hadhe been more of a gentleman, or more of a philosopher, or even morehumble, he would not so signally have succeeded. Germany, and thecircumstances of the age, required a rough, practical, bold, impetuousreformer to lead a movement against dignitaries and venerablecorruptions. England, in the eighteenth century, needed a man toarouse the common people to a sense of their spiritual condition; aman who would not be trammelled by his church; who would not begoverned by the principles of expediency; who would trust in God, andlabor under peculiar discouragement and self-denial. 

[Sidenote: Institution of Wesley. ]

Wesley was like Luther in another respect. He quarrelled with thosewho would not conform to all his views, whether they had been friendsor foes. He had been attracted by the Moravians. Their simplicity, fervor, and sedateness had won his regard. But when the Moraviansmaintained that there was delusion in those ravings which Wesleyconsidered as the work of grace, when they asserted that sin wouldremain with even regenerated man until death, and that it was in vainto expect the purification of the soul by works of self-denial, Wesleyopposed them, and slandered them. He also entered the lists againsthis friend and fellow-laborer, Whitefield. The latter did not agreewith him respecting perfection, nor election, nor predestination; and, when this disagreement had become fixed, an alienation took place, succeeded by actual bitterness and hostility. Wesley, however, in hislatter days, manifested greater charity and liberality, and was amodel of patience and gentleness. He became finally reconciled toWhitefield, and the union continued until the death of the latter, atNewburyport, in 1770. 

The greatness of Wesley consisted in devising that wonderful churchpolity which still governs the powerful and numerous sect which hefounded. It is from the system of the Methodists, rather than fromtheir theological opinions, that their society spread so rapidly overGreat Britain and America, and which numbered at his death, seventy-one thousand persons in England, and forty-eight thousand inthis country. 

And yet his institution was not wholly a matter of calculation, butwas gradually developed as circumstances arose. When contributionswere made towards building a meeting-house in Bristol, it was observedthat most of the brethren were poor, and could afford but little. Thensaid one of the number, "Put eleven of the poorest with me, and ifthey give any thing, it is well. I will call on each of them weekly, and if they give nothing, I will give for them as well as for myself. "This suggested the idea of a system of supervision. In the course ofthe weekly calls, the persons who had undertaken for a classdiscovered some irregularities among those for whose contributionsthey were responsible, and reported them to Wesley. He saw, at once, the advantage to be derived from such an arrangement. It was what hehad long desired. He called together the leaders, and desired thateach should make a particular inquiry into the behavior of all undertheir respective supervision. They did so. The custom was embraced bythe whole body, and became fundamental. But it was soon found to beinconvenient to visit each person separately in his own house weekly, and then it was determined that all the members of the class shouldassemble together weekly, when quarrels could be made up, and wherethey might be mutually profited by each other's prayers andexhortations. Thus the system of classes and class-leaders arose, which bears the same relation to the society at large that townmeetings do to the state or general government in the Americandemocracy--which, as it is known, constitute the genius of ourpolitical institutions. 

[Sidenote: Itinerancy. ]

Itinerancy also forms another great feature of Methodism; and thisresulted from accident. But it is the prerogative and peculiarity ofgenius to take advantage of accidents and circumstances. It cannotcreate them. Wesley had no church; but, being an ordained clergyman ofthe Establishment, and a fellow of a college beside, he had the rightto preach in any pulpit, and in any diocese. But the pulpits wereclosed against him, in consequence of his peculiarities; so hepreached wherever he could collect a congregation. Itinerancy andpopularity gave him notoriety, and flattered ambition, of which he wasnot wholly divested. He and his brethren wandered into every sectionof England, from the Northumbrian moorlands to the innermost depths ofthe Cornish mines, in the most tumultuous cities and in the mostunfrequented hamlets. 

[Sidenote: Great Influence and Power of Wesley. ]

As he was the father of the sect, all appointments were made by him, and, as he deserved respect and influence, the same became unbounded. When power was vested to an unlimited extent in his hands, and whenthe society had become numerous and scattered over a great extent ofterritory, he divided England into circuits, and each circuit had acertain number of ministers appointed to it. But he held out noworldly rewards as lures. The conditions which he imposed were hard. The clergy were to labor with patience and assiduity on a meanpittance, with no hope of wealth or ease. Rewards were to be giventhem by no earthly judge. The only recompense for toil and hunger wasthat of the original apostles--the approval of their consciences andthe favor of Heaven. 

To prevent the overbearing intolerance and despotism of the people, the chapels were not owned by the congregation nor even vested intrustees, but placed at the absolute disposal of Mr. Wesley and theconference. 

If the rule of Wesley was not in accordance with democraticprinciples, still its perpetuation in the most zealous of democraticcommunities, and its escape, thus far, from the ordinary fate of allhuman institutions, --that of corruption and decay, --shows itsremarkable wisdom, and also the great virtue of those who haveadministered the affairs of the society. It effected, especially inEngland, --what the Established Church and the various form ofDissenters could not do, --the religious renovation of the lowerclasses; it met their wants; it stimulated their enthusiasm. And whileMethodism promoted union and piety among the people, especially thosewho were ignorant and poor, it did not undermine their loyalty orattachment to the political institutions of the country. OtherDissenters were often hostile to the government, and have beenimpatient under the evils which have afflicted England; but theMethodists, taught subordination to superiors and rulers, and haveever been patient, peaceful, and quiet. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Lord Mahon's History should be particularly read; also Coxe's Memoirs of Walpole. Consult Smollett's and Tindall's History of England, and Belsham's History of George II. Smyth's Lectures are very valuable on this period of English history. See, also, Bolingbroke's State of Parties; Burke's Appeal from the Old to the New Whigs; Lord Chesterfield's Characters; and Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates. Reminiscences by Horace Walpole. For additional information respecting the South Sea scheme, see Anderson's and Macpherson's Histories of Commerce, and Smyth's Lectures. The lives of the Pretenders have been well written by Ray and Jesse. Tytler's History of Scotland should be consulted; and Waverley may be read with profit. The rise of the Methodists, the great event of the reign of George I. , has been generally neglected. Lord Mahon has, however, written a valuable chapter. See also Wesley's Letters and Diary, and Lives, by Southey and Moore. 

CHAPTER XX. 

THE COLONIZATION OF AMERICA AND THE EAST INDIES. 

[Sidenote: Commercial Enterprise. ]

During the administration of Sir Robert Walpole, the English coloniesin America, and the East India Company's settlements began to attractthe attention of ministers, and became of considerable politicalimportance. It is, therefore, time to consider the history ofcolonization, both in the East and West, and not only by the English, but by the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the French. 

The first settlements in the new world by Europeans, and theirconquests in the unknown regions of the old, were made chiefly in viewof commercial advantages. The love of money, that root of all evil, was overruled by Providence in the discovery of new worlds, and thediffusion of European civilization in countries inhabited by savages, or worn-out Oriental races. But the mere ignoble love of gain was notthe only motive which incited the Europeans to navigate unknown oceansand colonize new continents. There was also another, and this was thespirit of enterprise, which magically aroused the European mind in thefifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Marco Polo, when he visited theEast; the Portuguese, when they doubled the Cape of Good Hope;Columbus, when he discovered America; and Magellan, when he enteredthe South Sea, were moved by curiosity and love of science, more thanby love of gold. But the vast wealth, which the newly-discoveredcountries revealed, stimulated, in the breasts of the excitedEuropeans, the powerful passions of ambition and avarice; and theneedy and grasping governments of Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England patronized adventurers to the new El Dorado, and furnishedthem with ships and stores, in the hope of receiving a share of theprofits of their expedition. And they were not disappointed. Althoughmany disasters happened to the early navigators, still country aftercountry was added to the possessions of European kings, and vast sumsof gold and silver were melted into European coin. No conquests wereever more sudden, and brilliant than those of Cortez and Pizarro, nordid wealth ever before so suddenly enrich the civilized world. Butsudden and unlawful gains produced their natural fruit. All the worstevils which flow from extravagance, extortion, and pride prevailed inthe old world and the new; and those advantages and possessions, whichhad been gained by enterprise, were turned into a curse, for no wealthcan balance the vices of avarice, injustice, and cruelty. 

[Sidenote: Spanish Conquests and Settlements. ]

The most important of all the early settlements of America were madeby the Spaniards. Their conquests were the most brilliant, and provedthe most worthless. The spirit which led to their conquests andcolonization was essentially that of avarice and ambition. It must, however, be admitted that religious zeal, in some instances, was theanimating principle of the adventurers and of those that patronizedthem. 

The first colony was established in Hispaniola, or, as it wasafterwards called, St. Domingo, a short time after the discovery ofAmerica by Columbus. The mines of the island were, at that period, very productive, and the aggressive Spaniards soon compelled theunhappy natives to labor in them, under their governor, Juan Ponce deLeon. But Hispaniola was not sufficiently large or productive tosatisfy the cupidity of the governor, and Porto Rico was conquered andenslaved. Cuba also, in a few years, was added to the dominions ofSpain. 

At length, the Spaniards, who had explored the coasts of the Mainland, prepared to invade and conquer the populous territories ofMontezuma, Emperor of Mexico. The people whom he governed had attaineda considerable degree of civilization, having a regular government, asystem of laws, and an established priesthood. They were not ignorantof the means of recording great events, and possessed considerableskill in many useful and ornamental arts. They were rich in gold andsilver, and their cities were ornamented with palaces and gardens. Buttheir riches were irresistible objects of desire to the Europeanadventurers, and, therefore, proved their misfortune. The story oftheir conquest by Fernando Cortez need not here be told; familiarizedas are all readers and students with the exquisite and artisticnarrative of the great American historian, whose work and whose famecan only perish with the language itself. 

About ten years after the conquest of Mexico, Pizarro landed in Peru, which country was soon added to the dominions of Philip II. And thegovernment of that country was even more oppressive and unjust thanthat of Mexico. All Indians between the ages of fifteen and fifty werecompelled to work in the mines; and so dreadful was the forced labor, that four out of five of those who worked in them were supposed toperish annually. There was no limit to Spanish rapacity and cruelty, and it was exercised over all the other countries which weresubdued--Chili, Florida, and the West India Islands. 

Enormous and unparalleled quantities of the precious metals were sentto Spain from the countries of the new world. But, from the firstdiscovery of Peru and Mexico, the mother country declined in wealthand political importance. With the increase of gold, the price oflabor and of provision, and of all articles of manufacturing industry, also increased, and nearly in the same ratio. The Spaniards wereinsensible to this truth, and, instead of cultivating the soil orengaging in manufactures, were contented with the gold which came fromthe colonies. This, for a while, enriched them; but it was soonscattered over all Christendom, and was exchanged for the necessitiesof life. Industry and art declined, and those countries alone were thegainers which produced those articles which Spain was obliged topurchase. 

[Sidenote: Portuguese Discoveries. ]

Portugal soon rivalled Spain in the extent and richness of colonialpossessions. Brazil was discovered in 1501, and, in about half acentury after, was colonized. The native Brazilians, inferior incivilization to the Mexicans and Peruvians, were still less able thanthey to resist the arms of the Europeans. They were gradually subdued, and their beautiful and fertile country came into possession of thevictors. But the Portuguese also extended their empire in the East, aswell as in the West. After the discovery of a passage round the Capeof Good Hope by Vasco de Gama, the early navigators sought simply tobe enriched by commerce with the Indies. They found powerful rivals inthe Arabs, who had heretofore monopolized the trade. In order tosecure their commerce, and also to protect themselves against theirrivals and enemies, the Portuguese, under the guidance of Albuquerque, procured a grant of land in India, from one of the native princes. Soon after, Goa was reduced, and became the seat of government; andterritorial acquisition commenced, which, having been continued nearlythree centuries by the various European powers, is still progressive. In about sixty years, the Portuguese had established a great empire inthe East, which included the coasts and islands of the Persian Gulf, the whole Malabar and Coromandel coasts, the city of Malacca, andnumerous islands of the Indian Ocean. They had effected a settlementin China, obtained a free trade with the empire of Japan, and receivedtribute from the rich Islands of Ceylon, Java, and Sumatra. 

[Sidenote: Portuguese Settlements. ]

The same moral effects happened to Portugal, from the possession ofthe Indies, that the conquests of Cortez and Pizarro produced onSpain. Goa was the most depraved spot in the world: and the viceswhich wealth engendered, wherever the Europeans formed a settlement, can now scarcely be believed. When Portugal fell under the dominion ofPhilip II. , the ruin of her settlements commenced. They weresupplanted by the Dutch, who were more moral, more united andenterprising, though they provoked, by their arrogance and injustice, the hostility of the Eastern princes. 

The conquests and settlements of the Dutch rapidly succeeded those ofthe Portuguese. In 1595, Cornelius Houtman sailed, with awell-provided fleet, for the land of gems and spices. A company wassoon incorporated, in Holland, for managing the Indian trade. Settlements were first made in the Moluccas Islands, which soonextended to the possession of the Island of Java, and to the completemonopoly of the spice trade. The Dutch then gained possession of theIsland of Ceylon, which they retained until it was wrested from themby the English. But their empire was only maintained at a vast expenseof blood and treasure; nor were they any exception to the otherEuropean colonists and adventurers, in the indulgence of all thosevices which degrade our nature. 

Neither the French nor the English made any important conquests in theEast, when compared with those of the Portuguese and Dutch. Nor didtheir acquisitions in America equal those of the Spaniards. But theywere more important in their ultimate results. 

[Sidenote: Early English Enterprise. ]

English enterprise was manifested shortly after the first voyage ofColumbus. Henry VII. Was sufficiently enlightened, envious, andavaricious, to listen to the proposals of a Venetian, resident inBristol, by the name of Cabot; and, in 1495, he commissioned him tosail under the banner of England, to take possession of any newcountries he might discover. Accordingly, in about two years after, Cabot, with his second son, Sebastian, embarked at Bristol, in one ofthe king's ships, attended by four smaller vessels, equipped by themerchants of that enterprising city. 

Impressed with the idea of Columbus, and other early navigators, thatthe West India Islands were not far from the Indian continent, heconcluded that, if he steered in a more northerly direction, he shouldreach India by a shorter course than that pursued by the greatdiscoverer. Accordingly, sailing in that course, he discoveredNewfoundland and Prince Edwards', and, soon after, the coast of NorthAmerica, along which he sailed, from Labrador to Virginia. But, disappointed in not finding a westerly passage to India, he returnedto England, without attempting, either by settlement or conquest, togain a footing on the great continent which the English were thesecond to visit, of all the European nations. 

England was prevented, by various circumstances, from derivingimmediate advantage from the discovery. The unsettled state of thecountry; the distractions arising from the civil wars, and afterwardsfrom the Reformation; the poverty of the people, and the sordid natureof the king, --were unfavorable to settlements which promised noimmediate advantage; and it was not until the reign of Elizabeth thatany deliberate plans were made for the colonization of North America. The voyages of Frobisher and Drake had aroused a spirit of adventure, if they had not gratified the thirst for gold. 

Among those who felt an intense interest in the new world, was SirHumphrey Gilbert, a man of enlarged views and intrepid boldness. Hesecured from Elizabeth (1578) a liberal patent, and sailed, with aconsiderable body of adventurers, for the new world. But he took a toonortherly direction, and his largest vessel was shipwrecked on thecoast of Cape Breton. The enterprise from various causes, completelyfailed, and the intrepid navigator lost his life. 

[Sidenote: Sir Walter Raleigh. ]

The spirit of the times raised up, however, a greater genius, and amore accomplished adventurer, and no less a personage than Sir WalterRaleigh, --the favorite of the queen; one of the greatest scholars andthe most elegant courtier of the age; a soldier, a philosopher, and astatesman. He obtained a patent, substantially the same as that whichhad been bestowed on Gilbert. In 1584, Raleigh despatched two smallexploring vessels, under the command of Amidas and Barlow, whichseasonably arrived off the coast of North Carolina. From the favorablereport of the country and the people, a larger fleet, of seven ships, was despatched to America, commanded by Sir Richard Grenville. But hewas diverted from his course by the prevailing passion for predatoryenterprise, and hence only landed one hundred and eight men atRoanoke, (1585. ) The government of this feeble band was intrusted toCaptain Lane. But the passion for gold led to a misunderstanding withthe natives. The colony became enfeebled and reduced, and theadventurers returned to England, (1586, ) bringing with them someknowledge of the country, and also that singular weed, which rapidlyenslaved the courtiers of Queen Elizabeth, and which soon became oneof the great staple commodities in the trade of the civilized world. Modern science has proved it to be a poison, and modern philanthropyhas lifted up its warning voice against the use of it. But when havemen, in their degeneracy, been governed by their reason? What logiccan break the power of habit, or counteract the seductive influencesof those excitements which fill the mind with visionary hopes, andlull a tumultuous spirit into the repose of pleasant dreams andoblivious joys? Sir Walter Raleigh, to his shame or his misfortune, was among the first to patronize a custom which has proved moreinjurious to civilized nations than even the use of opium itself, because it is more universal and more insidious. 

But smoking was simply an amusement with him. He soon turned histhoughts to the reëstablishment of his colony. Even before the returnof the company under Lane, Sir Richard Grenville had visited theRoanoke, with the necessary stores. But he arrived too late; thecolony was abandoned. 

But nothing could abate the zeal of the most enterprising genius ofthe age. In 1587, he despatched three more ships, under the command ofCaptain White, who founded the city of Raleigh. But no better successattended the new band of colonists. White sailed for England, tosecure new supplies; and, when he returned, he found no traces of thecolony he had planted; and no subsequent ingenuity or labor has beenable to discover the slightest vestige. 

The patience of Raleigh was not wasted; but new objects occupied hismind, and he parted with his patent, which made him the proprietary ofa great part of the Southern States. Nor were there any new attemptsat colonization until 1606, in the reign of James. 

[Sidenote: London Company Incorporated. ]

Through the influence of Sir Ferdinand Gorges, a man of great wealth;Sir John Popham, lord chief justice of England; Richard Hakluyt, thehistorian; Bartholomew Gosnold, the navigator, and John Smith, theenthusiastic adventurer, --King James I. Granted a royal charter to tworival companies, for the colonization of America. The first wascomposed of noblemen, gentlemen, and merchants, in and about London, who had an exclusive right to occupy regions from thirty-four tothirty-eight degrees of north latitude. The other company, composed ofgentlemen and merchants in the west of England, had assigned to themthe territory between forty-one and forty-five degrees. But only thefirst company succeeded. 

The territory, appropriated to the London or southern colony, preserved the name which had been bestowed upon it during the reign ofElizabeth, --Virginia. The colonists were authorized to transport, freeof the custom-house, for the term of seven years, what arms andprovisions they required; and their children were permitted to enjoythe same privileges and liberties, in the American settlements, thatEnglishmen had at home. They had the right to search for mines, tocoin money, and, for twenty-one years, to impose duties, on vesselstrading to their harbors, for the benefit of the colony. But, afterthis period, the duty was to be taken for the king, who also preserveda control over both the councils established for the government of thecolony, --the one in England itself, and the other in Virginia; acontrol inconsistent with those liberties which the colonistssubsequently asserted and secured. 

[Sidenote: Hardships of the Virginia Colony. ]

The London Company promptly applied themselves to the settlement oftheir territories; and, on the 19th of December, 1606, a squadron ofthree small vessels set sail for the new world; and, on May 13, 1607, a company of one hundred and five men, without families, disembarkedat Jamestown. This was the first permanent settlement in America bythe English. But great misfortunes afflicted them. Before September, one half of the colonists had perished, and the other half weresuffering from famine, dissension, and fear. The president, Wingfield, attempted to embezzle the public stores, and escape to the WestIndies. He was supplanted in his command by Ratcliffe, a man withoutcapacity. But a deliverer was raised up in the person of Captain JohnSmith, who extricated the suffering and discontented band from theevils which impended. He had been a traveller and a warrior; hadvisited France, Italy, and Egypt; fought in Holland and Hungary; wastaken a prisoner of war in Wallachia, and sent as a slave toConstantinople. Removed to a fortress in the Crimea, and subjected tothe hardest tasks, he yet contrived to escape, and, after many perils, reached his native country. But greater hardships and dangers awaitedhim in the new world, to which he was impelled by his adventurouscuriosity. He was surprised and taken by a party of hostile Indians, when on a tour of exploration, and would have been murdered, had itnot been for his remarkable presence of mind and singular sagacity, united with the intercession of the famous Pocahontas, daughter of agreat Indian chief, from whom some of the best families in Virginiaare descended. It would be pleasant to detail the romantic incidentsof this brief captivity; but our limits forbid. Smith, when hereturned to Jamestown, found his company reduced to forty men, andthey were discouraged and disheartened. Moreover, they were adifferent class of men from those who colonized New England. They weregentlemen adventurers connected with aristocratic families, weregreedy for gold, and had neither the fortitude nor the habitsrequisite for success. They were not accustomed to labor, at leastwith the axe and plough. Smith earnestly wrote to the council of thecompany in England, to send carpenters, husbandmen, gardeners, fishermen, and blacksmiths, instead of "vagabond gentlemen andgoldsmiths. " But he had to organize a colony with such materials asavarice or adventurous curiosity had sent to America. And, in spite ofdissensions and natural indolence, he succeeded in placing it on afirm foundation; surveyed the Chesapeake Bay to the Susquehannah, andexplored the inlets of the majestic Potomac. But he was not permittedto complete the work which he had so beneficently begun. Hisadministration was unacceptable to the company in England, who caredvery little for the welfare of the infant colony, and only sought aprofitable investment of their capital. They were disappointed thatmines of gold and silver had not been discovered, and that theythemselves had not become enriched. Even the substantial welfare ofthe colony displeased them; for this diverted attention from thepursuit of mineral wealth. 

[Sidenote: New Charter of the London Company. ]

The original patentees, therefore, sought to strengthen themselves bynew associates and a new charter. And a new charter was accordinglygranted to twenty-one peers, ninety-eight knights, and a great numberof doctors, esquires, gentlemen, and merchants. The bounds of thecolony were enlarged, the council and offices in Virginia abolished, and the company in England empowered to nominate all officers in thecolony. Lord Delaware was appointed governor and captain-general ofthe company, and a squadron of nine ships, with five hundred emigrantswere sent to Virginia. But these emigrants consisted, for the mostpart, of profligate young men, whom their aristocratic friends sentaway to screen themselves from shame; broken down gentlemen, too lazyto work; and infamous dependants on powerful families. They threw thewhole colony into confusion, and provoked, by their aggression andfolly, the animosities of the Indians, whom Smith had appeased. Thesettlement at Jamestown was abandoned to famine and confusion, andwould have been deserted had it not been for the timely arrival ofLord Delaware, with ample supplies and new recruits. Hisadministration was wise and efficient, and he succeeded in restoringorder, if he did not secure the wealth which was anticipated. 

In 1612, the company obtained a third patent, by which all the islandswithin three hundred leagues of the Virginia shore were granted to thepatentees, and by which a portion of the power heretofore vested inthe council was transferred to the whole company. The political rightsof the colonists remained the same but they acquired gradually peaceand tranquillity. Tobacco was extensively cultivated, and proved amore fruitful source of wealth than mines of silver or gold. 

The jealousy of arbitrary power, and impatience of liberty among thenew settlers, induced the Governor of Virginia, in 1619, to reinstatethem in the full possession of the rights of Englishmen; and heaccordingly convoked a Provincial Assembly, the first ever held inAmerica, which consisted of the governor, the council, and a number ofburgesses, elected by the eleven existing boroughs of the colony. Thedeliberation and laws of this infant legislature were transmitted toEngland for approval; and so wise and judicious were these, that thecompany, soon after, approved and ratified the platform of whatgradually ripened into the American representative system. 

[Sidenote: Rapid Colonization. ]

The guarantee of political rights led to a rapid colonization. "Menwere now willing to regard Virginia as their home. They fell tobuilding houses and planting corn. " Women were induced to leave theparent country to become the wives of adventurous planters; and, during the space of three years, thirty-five hundred persons, of bothsexes, found their way to Virginia. In the year 1620, a Dutch ship, from the coast of Guinea, arrived in James River, and landed twentynegroes for sale; and, as they were found more capable of enduringfatigue, in a southern climate, than the Europeans, they werecontinually imported, until a large proportion of the inhabitants ofVirginia was composed of slaves. Thus was introduced, at this earlyperiod, that lasting system of injustice and cruelty which has provedalready an immeasurable misfortune to the country, as well as adisgrace to the institutions of republican liberty, but which islamented, in many instances, by no class with more sincerity than bythose who live by the produce of slave labor itself. 

The succeeding year, which witnessed the importation of negroes, beheld the cultivation of tobacco, which before the introduction ofcotton, was the great staple of southern produce. 

[Sidenote: Indian Warfare. ]

In 1622, the long-suppressed enmity of the Indians broke out in asavage attempt to murder the whole colony. A plot had been formed bywhich all the English settlements were to be attacked on the same day, and at the same hour. The conspiracy was betrayed by a friendlyIndian, but not in time to prevent a fearful massacre of three hundredand forty-seven persons, among whom were some of the wealthiest andmost respectable inhabitants. Then followed all the evils of an Indianwar, and the settlements were reduced from eighty to eightplantations; and it was not until after a protracted struggle that thecolonists regained their prosperity. 

Scarcely had hostilities with the Indians commenced, beforedissensions among the company in England led to a quarrel with theking, and a final abrogation of their charter. The company was toolarge and too democratic. The members were dissatisfied that so littlegain had been derived from the colony; and moreover they made theircourts or convocations, when they assembled to discuss colonialmatters, the scene of angry political debate. There was a court partyand a country party, each inflamed with violent political animosities. The country party was the stronger, and soon excited the jealousy ofthe arbitrary monarch, who looked upon their meetings "as but aseminary to a seditious parliament. " A royal board of commissionerswere appointed to examine the affairs of the company, who reportedunfavorably; and the king therefore ordered the company to surrenderits charter. The company refused to obey an arbitrary mandate; butupon its refusal, the king ordered a writ of _quo warranto_ to beissued, and the Court of the King's Bench decided, of course, in favorof the crown. The company was accordingly dissolved. But thedissolution, though arbitrary, operated beneficially on the colony. Ofall cramping institutions, a sovereign company of merchants is themost so, since they seek simply commercial gain, without any referenceto the political, moral, or social improvement of the people whom theyseek to control. 

[Sidenote: Governor Harvey. ]

Before King James had completed his scheme for the government of thecolony, he died; and Charles I. Pursued the same arbitrary policywhich his father contemplated. He instituted a government whichcombined the unlimited prerogative of an absolute prince with thenarrow and selfish maxims of a mercantile corporation. He monopolizedthe profits of its trade, and empowered the new governor, whom heappointed, to exercise his authority with the most undisguisedusurpation of those rights which the colonists had heretofore enjoyed. Harvey's disposition was congenial with the rapacious and cruel systemwhich he pursued, and he acted more like the satrap of an Easternprince than the representative of a constitutional monarch. Thecolonists remonstrated and complained; but their appeals to the mercyand justice of the king were disregarded, and Harvey continued hiscourse of insolence and tyranny until that famous parliament wasassembled which rebelled against the folly and government of Charles. In 1641, a new and upright governor, Sir William Berkeley, was sent toVirginia, and the old provincial liberties were restored. In thecontest between the king and parliament Virginia espoused the royalcause. When the parliament had triumphed over the king, Virginia wasmade to feel the force of republican displeasure, and oppressiverestrictions were placed upon the trade of the colony, which were themore provoking in view of the indulgence which the New Englandcolonies received from the protector. A revolt ensued, and Sir WilliamBerkeley was forced from his retirement, and made to assume thegovernment of the rebellious province. Cromwell, fortunately forVirginia, but unfortunately for the world, died before the rebellion, could be suppressed; and when Charles II. Was restored, Virginiajoyfully returned to her allegiance. The supremacy of the Church ofEngland was established by law, stipends were allowed to herministers, and no clergymen were permitted to exercise their functionsbut such as held to the supremacy of the Church of England. 

[Sidenote: Arbitrary Policy of Charles II. ]

But Charles II. Was as incapable as his father of pursuing a generousand just policy to the colonies; and parliament itself looked upon thecolonies as a source of profit to the nation, rather than as a part ofthe nation. No sooner was Charles seated on the throne, thanparliament imposed a duty of five per cent. On all merchandiseexported from, or imported into, any of the dominions belonging to thecrown; and the famous Navigation Act was passed, which ordained thatno commodities should be imported into any of the British settlementsbut in vessels built in England or in her colonies; and that no sugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, indigo and some other articles produced in thecolonies, should be shipped from them to any other country butEngland. As a compensation, the colonies were permitted the exclusivecultivation of tobacco. The parliament, soon after, in 1663, passedadditional restrictions; and, advancing, step by step, graduallysubjected the colonies to a most oppressive dependence on the mothercountry, and even went so far as to regulate the trade of the severalcolonies with each other. This system of monopoly and exclusion, ofcourse, produced indignation and disgust, and sowed the seeds ofultimate rebellion. Indian hostilities were added to provincialdiscontent, and even the horrors of civil war disturbed the prosperityof the colony. An ambitious and unprincipled adventurer, by the nameof Bacon, succeeded in fomenting dissension, and in successfullyresisting the power of the governor. Providence arrested the career ofthe rebel in the moment of his triumph; and his sickness and deathfortunately dissipated the tempest which threatened to be fatal to thepeace and welfare of Virginia. Berkeley, on the suppression of therebellion, punished the offenders with a severity which ill accordedwith his lenient and pacific character. His course did not please thegovernment in England, and he was superseded by Colonel Jeffries. Buthe died before his successor arrived. A succession of governorsadministered the colony as their disposition prompted, some of whomwere wise and able, and others tyrannical and rapacious. 

The English revolution of 1688 produced also a change in theadministration of the colony. Its dependence on the personal characterof the sovereign was abolished, and its chartered liberties wereprotected. The king continued to appoint the royal governor, and theparliament continued to oppress the trade of the colonists; but they, on the whole, enjoyed the rights of freemen, and rapidly advanced inwealth and prosperity. On the accession of William and Mary, thecolony contained fifty thousand inhabitants and forty-eight parishes;and, in 1676, the customs on tobacco alone were collected in Englandto the amount of one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds. Thepeople generally belonged to the Episcopal Church, and the clergy eachreceived, in every parish, a house and glebe, together with sixteenthousand pounds of tobacco. The people were characterized forhospitality and urbanity, but were reproached for the indolence whicha residence in scattered villages, a hot climate, and negro slaverymust almost inevitably lead to. Literature, that solace of the refinedand luxurious in the European world, was but imperfectly cultivated;nor was religion, in its stern and lofty developments, the animatingprinciple of life, as in the New England settlements. But the peopleof Virginia were richer, more cultivated, and more aristocratic thanthe Puritans, more refined in manners, and more pleasing ascompanions. 

[Sidenote: Settlement of New England. ]

The settlements in New England were made by a very different class ofmen from those who colonized Virginia. They were not adventurers inquest of gain; they were not broken-down gentlemen of aristocraticconnections; they were not the profligate and dissolute members ofpowerful families. They were Puritans, they belonged to the middleranks of society; they were men of stern and lofty virtue, ofinvincible energy, and hard and iron wills; they detested both thecivil and religious despotism of their times, and desired, above allworldly consideration, the liberty of worshipping God according to thedictates of their consciences. They were chiefly Independents andCalvinists, among whom religion was a life, and not a dogma. Theysought savage wilds, not for gain, not for ease, not foraggrandizement, but for liberty of conscience; and, for the sake ofthat inestimable privilege, they were ready to forego all the comfortsand elegances of civilized life, and cheerfully meet all the dangersand make all the sacrifices which a residence among savage Indians, and in a cold and inhospitable climate, necessarily incurred. 

The efforts at colonization attempted by the company in the west ofEngland, to which allusion has been made, signally failed. God did notdesign that New England should be settled by a band of commercialadventurers. A colony was permanently planted at Plymouth, within thelimits of the corporation, of forty persons, to whom James had grantedenormous powers, and a belt of country from the fortieth to theforty-eighth degree of north latitude in width, and from the Atlanticto the Pacific in length. 

[Sidenote: Arrival of the Mayflower. ]

On the 5th of August, 1620, the Mayflower and the Speedwell, freightedwith the first Puritan colony, set sail from Southampton. It composeda band of religious and devoted men, with their wives and children, who had previously sought shelter in Holland for the enjoyment oftheir religious opinions. The smaller vessel, after a trial on theAtlantic, was found incompetent to the voyage, and was abandoned. Themore timid were allowed to disembark at old Plymouth. One hundred andone resolute souls again set sail in the Mayflower, for the unknownwilderness, with all its countless dangers and miseries. No commonworldly interest could have sustained their souls. The firstadventurers embarked for Virginia, without women or children; but thePuritans made preparation for a permanent residence. Providence, against their design, guided their little vessel to the desolateshores of the most barren part of Massachusetts. On the 9th ofNovember, it was safely moored in the harbor of Cape Cod. On the 11th, the colonists solemnly bound themselves into a body politic, and choseJohn Carver for their governor. On the 11th of December, (O. S. , )after protracted perils and sufferings, this little company landed onPlymouth Rock. Before the opening spring, more than half the colonyhad perished from privation, fatigue, and suffering, among whom wasthe governor himself. In the autumn, their numbers were recruited; butall the miseries of famine remained. They lived together as acommunity; but, for three or four months together, they had no cornwhatever. In the spring of 1623, each family planted for itself, andland was assigned to each person in perpetual fee. The needy anddefenceless colonists were fortunately preserved from the hostility ofthe natives, since a famine had swept away the more dangerous of theirsavage neighbors; nor did hostilities commence for several years. Godprotected the Pilgrims, in their weakness, from the murderoustomahawk, and from the perils of the wilderness. They suffered, butthey existed. Their numbers slowly increased, but they were allPuritans, --were just the men to colonize the land, and lay thefoundation of a great empire. From the beginning, a strict democracyexisted, and all enjoyed ample exemption from the trammels ofarbitrary power. No king took cognizance of their existence, orimposed upon them a despotic governor. They appointed their ownrulers, and those rulers governed in the fear of God. Townshipindependence existed from the first; and this is the nursery and thegenius of American institutions. The Plymouth colony was aself-constituted democracy; but it was composed of Englishmen, wholoved their native land, and, while they sought unrestrained freedom, did not disdain dependence on the mother country, and a properconnection with the English government. They could not obtain a royalcharter from the king; but the Grand Council of Plymouth--a newcompany, to which James had given the privileges of the oldone--granted all the privileges which the colonists desired. They weretoo insignificant to attract much attention from the government, orexcite the jealousy of a great corporation. 

Unobtrusive and unfettered, the colony slowly spread. But wherever itspread, it took root. It was a tree which Providence planted for allgenerations. It was established upon a rock. It was a branch of thetrue church, which was destined to defy storms and changes, becauseits strength was in the Lord. 

[Sidenote: Settlement of New Hampshire. ]

But all parts of New England were not, at first, settled by PuritanPilgrims, or from motives of religion merely. The council of Plymouthissued grants of domains to various adventurers, who were animated bythe spirit of gain. John Mason received a patent for what is now thestate of New Hampshire. Portsmouth and Dover had an existence as earlyas 1623. Gorges obtained a grant of the whole district between thePiscataqua and the Kennebec. Saco, in 1636, contained one hundred andfifty people. But the settlements in New Hampshire and Maine, havingdisappointed the expectations of the patentees in regard to emolumentand profit, were not very flourishing. 

In the mean time, a new company of Puritans was formed for thesettlement of the country around Boston. The company obtained a royalcharter, (1629, ) which constituted them a body politic, by the name ofthe _Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay_. It conferred onthe colonists the rights of English subjects, although it did nottechnically concede freedom of religious worship, or the privilege ofself-government. The main body of the colonists settled in Salem. Theywere a band of devout and lofty characters; Calvinists in theirreligious creed, and republicans in their political opinions. Strictindependency was the basis and the genius of their church. It wasself-constituted, and all its officers were elected by the members. 

[Sidenote: Constitution of the Colony. ]

The charter of the company had been granted to a corporationconsisting chiefly of merchants resident in London, and was moreliberal than could have been expected from so bigoted and zealous aking as Charles I. If it did not directly concede the rights ofconscience, it seemed to be silent respecting them; and the colonistswere left to the unrestricted enjoyment of their religious and civilliberties. The intolerance and rigor of Archbishop Laud caused thisnew colony to be rapidly settled; and, as many distinguished mendesired to emigrate, they sought and secured, from the company inEngland, a transfer of all the powers of government to the actualsettlers in America. By this singular transaction, the municipalrights and privileges of the colonists were established on a firmfoundation. 

In 1630, not far from fifteen hundred persons, with Winthrop as theirleader and governor, emigrated to the new world, and settled first inCharlestown, and afterwards in Boston. In accordance with the charterwhich gave them such unexpected privileges, a General Court wasassembled, to settle the government. But the privilege of the electivefranchise was given only to the members of the church, and each churchwas formed after the model of the one in Salem. It cannot be said thata strict democracy was established, since church membership was thecondition of the full enjoyment of political rights. But if theconstitution was somewhat aristocratic and exclusive, aristocracy wasnot based on wealth or intellect. The Calvinists of Massachusettsrecognized a government of the elect, --a sort of theocracy, in whichonly the religious, or those who professed to be so, and were admittedto be so, had a right to rule. This was the notion of Cromwellhimself, the great idol and representative of the Independents, whofancied that the government of England should be intrusted only tothose who were capable of saving England, and were worthy to ruleEngland. As his party constituted, in his eyes, this elect body, andwas, in reality, the best party, --composed of men who feared God, andwere willing to be ruled by his laws, --therefore his party, as hesupposed, had a right to overturn thrones, and establish a newtheocracy on earth. 

[Sidenote: Doctrines of the Puritans. ]

This notion was a delusion in England, and proved fatal to all thosewho were blinded by it. Not so in America. Amid the unbroken forestsof New England, a colony of men was planted who generally recognizedthe principles of Cromwell; and one of the best governments the worldhas seen controlled the turbulent, rewarded the upright, and protectedthe rights and property of all classes with almost paternal fidelityand justice. The colony, however, --such is the weakness of man, suchthe degeneracy of his nature, --was doomed to dissension. Bigotry, fromwhich no communities or individuals are fully free, drove some of thebest men from the limits of the colony. Roger Williams, a minister inSalem, and one of the most worthy and enlightened men of his age, sought shelter from the persecution of his brethren amid the wilds onNarragansett Bay. In June, 1636, the lawgiver of Rhode Island, withfive companions, embarked in an Indian canoe, and, sailing down theriver, landed near a spring, on a sheltered spot, which he called_Providence_. He was gradually joined by others, who sympathized withhis tolerant spirit and enlightened views, and the colony of RhodeIsland became an asylum for the persecuted for many years. And therewere many such. The Puritans were too earnest to live in harmony withthose who differed from them on great religious questions; and adifference of views must have been expected among men so intellectual, so acute, and so fearless in speculation. How could dissenters fromprevailing opinions fail to arise?--mystics, fanatics, and heretics?The idea of special divine illumination--ever the prevailing source offanaticism, in all ages and countries--led astray some; and the desirefor greater spiritual liberty animated others. Anne Hutchinson adoptedsubstantially the doctrine of George Fox, that the spirit of Godilluminates believers, independently of his written word; and shecommunicated her views to many others, who became, like her, arrogantand conceited, in spite of their many excellent qualities. Harry Vane, the governor, was among the number. But there was no reasoning withfanatics, who fancied themselves especially inspired; and, as theydisturbed the peace of the colony, the leaders were expelled. Vanehimself returned to England, to mingle in scenes more congenial withhis excellent but excitable temper. In England, this illustriousfriend of Milton greatly distinguished himself for his efforts in thecause of liberty, and ever remained its consistent advocate; opposingequally the tyranny of the king, and the encroachments of those whooverturned his throne. 

[Sidenote: Pequod War. ]

Connecticut, though assigned to a company in England, was earlycolonized by a detachment of Pilgrims from Massachusetts. In 1635, settlements were made at Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield. Thefollowing year, the excellent and illustrious Hooker led a company ofone hundred persons through the forests to the delightful banks of theConnecticut, whose rich alluvial soil promised an easier support thanthe hard and stony land in the vicinity of Boston. They were scarcelysettled before the Pequod war commenced, which involved all thecolonies in a desperate and bloody contest with the Indians. But thePequods were no match for Europeans, especially without firearms; and, in 1637, the tribe was nearly annihilated. The energy and severityexercised by the colonists, fighting for their homes, struck awe inthe minds of the savages; and it was long before they had the courageto rally a second time. The Puritans had the spirit of Cromwell, andnever hesitated to act with intrepid boldness and courage, when thenecessity was laid upon them. They were no advocates of half measures. Their subsequent security and growth are, in no slight degree, to betraced to these rigorous measures, --measures which, in these times, are sometimes denounced as too severe, but the wisdom of which canscarcely be questioned when the results are considered. All the greatmasters of war, and of war with barbarians, have pursued a policy ofunmitigated severity; and when a temporizing or timid course has beenadopted with men incapable of being governed by reason, and animatedby savage passions, that course has failed. 

[Sidenote: Union of the New England Colonies. ]

After the various colonies were well established in New England, andmore than twenty thousand had emigrated from the mother country, theywere no longer regarded with benevolent interest by the king or hisministers. The Grand Council of Plymouth surrendered its charter tothe king, and a writ of _quo warranto_ was issued against theMassachusetts colony. But the Puritans refused to surrender theircharter, and prepared for resistance against the malignant scheme ofStrafford and Laud. Before they could be carried into execution, thestruggle between the king and the Long Parliament had commenced. Theless resistance was forgotten in the greater. The colonies escaped thevengeance of a bigoted government. When the parliament triumphed, theywere especially favored, and gradually acquired wealth and power. Thedifferent colonies formed a confederation to protect themselvesagainst the Dutch and French on the one side, and the Indians on theother. And this happily continued for half a century, and wasproductive of very important results. But the several coloniescontinued to make laws for their own people, to repress anarchy, andfavor the cause of religion and unity. They did not always exhibit aliberal and enlightened policy. They destroyed witches; persecuted theBaptists and Quakers, and excluded them from their settlements. But, with the exception of religious persecution, their legislation waswise, and their general conduct was virtuous. They encouraged schools, and founded the University of Cambridge. They preserved the variouspeculiarities of Puritanism in regard to amusements, to the observanceof the Sabbath, and to antipathy to any thing which reminded them ofRome, or even of the Church of England. But Puritanism was not anodious crust, a form, a dogma. It was a life, a reality; and was notunfavorable to the development of the most beautiful virtues ofcharity and benevolence, in a certain sphere. It was not a meretraditional Puritanism, which clings with disgusting tenacity to aform, when the spirit of love has departed; but it was a harmoniousdevelopment of living virtues, which sympathized with education, withfreedom, and with progress; which united men together by the bond ofChristian love, and incited them to deeds of active benevolence andintrepid moral heroism. Nor did the Puritan Pilgrims persecute thosewho did not harmonize with them in order to punish them, but simply toprotect themselves, and to preserve in their midst, and in theiroriginal purity, those institutions and those rights, for thepossession of which they left their beloved native land for a savagewilderness, with its countless perils and miseries. But theirhardships and afflictions were not of long continuance. With energy, industry, frugality, and love, they soon obtained security, comfort, and health. And it is no vain and idle imagination which assigns tothose years, which succeeded the successful planting of the colony, the period of the greatest happiness and virtue which New England hasever enjoyed. 

Equally fortunate with the Puritans were those interesting people whosettled Pennsylvania. If the Quakers were persecuted in the mothercountry and in New England, they found a shelter on the banks of theDelaware. There they obtained and enjoyed that freedom of religiousworship which had been denied to the great founder of the sect, andwhich had even been withheld from them by men who had struggled withthem for the attainment of this exalted privilege. 

[Sidenote: William Penn. ]

In 1677, the Quakers obtained a charter which recognized the principleof democratic equality in the settlements in West Jersey; and in 1680, William Penn received from the king, who was indebted to his father, agrant of an extensive territory, which was called _Pennsylvania_, ofwhich he was constituted absolute proprietary. He also received aliberal charter, and gave his people privileges and a code of lawswhich exceeded in liberality any that had as yet been bestowed on anycommunity. In 1682 he landed at Newcastle, and, soon after, at his newcity on the banks of the Delaware, under the shelter of a large, spreading elm, made his immortal treaty with the Indians. Heproclaimed to the Indian, heretofore deemed a foe never to beappeased, the principles of love which animated Fox, and which "MaryFisher had borne to the Grand Turk. " "We meet, " said the lawgiver, "onthe broad pathway of good faith and good will. No advantage shall betaken on either side, but all shall be openness and love. I will notcall you children, for parents sometimes chide their children tooseverely; nor brothers only, for brothers differ. The friendshipbetween me and you I will not compare to a chain, for that the rainsmight rust, or the felling tree might break. We are the same as if oneman's body were to be divided into two parts; we are all one flesh andblood. "

Such were the sublime doctrines which the illustrious founder ofPennsylvania declared to the Indians, and which he made the basis ofhis government, and the rule of his intercourse with his own peopleand with savage tribes. These doctrines were already instilled intothe minds of the settlers, and they also found a response in the soulsof the Indians. The sons of the wilderness long cherished therecollection of the covenant, and never forgot its principles. Whileall the other settlements of the Europeans were suffering from thehostility of the red man, Pennsylvania alone enjoyed repose. "Not adrop of Quaker blood was ever shed by an Indian. "

William Penn, although the absolute proprietor of a tract of countrywhich was nearly equal in extent to England, sought no revenue and noarbitrary power. He gave to the settlers the right to choose their ownmagistrates, from the highest to the lowest, and only reserved tohimself the power to veto the bills of the council--the privilegewhich our democracies still allow to their governors. 

Such a colony as he instituted could not but prosper. Its risingglories were proclaimed in every country of Europe, and the needy anddistressed of all countries sought this realized Utopia. In two yearsafter Philadelphia was settled, it contained six hundred houses. Peacewas uninterrupted, and the settlement spread more rapidly than in anyother part of North America. 

New Jersey, Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, were allcolonized by the English, shortly after the settlement of Virginia andNew England, either by emigration from England, or from the othercolonies. But there was nothing in their early history sufficientlymarked to warrant a more extended sketch. In general, the SouthernStates were colonized by men who had not the religious elevation ofthe Puritans, nor the living charity of the Quakers. But theircharacters improved by encountering the evils to which they weresubjected, and they became gradually imbued with those principleswhich in after times secured independence and union. 

[Sidenote: Settlement of New York. ]

The settlement of New York, however, merits a passing notice, since itwas colonized by emigrants from Holland, which was by far the mostflourishing commercial state of Europe in the seventeenth century. TheHudson River had been discovered (1609) by an Englishman, whose nameit bears, but who was in the service of the Dutch East India Company. The right of possession of the country around it was therefore claimedby the United Provinces, and an association of Dutch merchants fittedout a ship to trade with the Indians. In 1614, a rude fort was erectedon Manhattan Island, and, the next year, the settlement at Albanycommenced, chiefly with a view of trading with the Indians. In 1623, New Amsterdam, now New York, was built for the purpose ofcolonization, and extensive territories were appropriated by the Dutchfor the rising colony. This appropriation involved them in constantcontention with the English, as well as with the Indians; nor wasthere the enjoyment of political privileges by the people, as in theNew England colonies. The settlements resembled lordships in theNetherlands, and every one who planted a colony of fifty souls, possessed the absolute property of the lands he colonized, and became_Patroon_, or Lord of the Manor. Very little attention was given toeducation, and the colonists were not permitted to make cotton, woollen, or linen cloth, for fear of injury to the monopolists of theDutch manufactures. The province had no popular freedom, and no publicspirit. The poor were numerous, and the people were disinclined tomake proper provision for their own protection. 

[Sidenote: Conquest of New Netherlands. ]

But the colony of the New Netherlands was not destined to remain underthe government of the Dutch West India Company. It was conquered bythe English in 1664, and the conquerors promised security to thecustoms, the religion, the institutions, and the possessions of theDutch; and this promise was observed. In 1673, the colony wasreconquered, but finally, in 1674, was ceded to the English, and thebrother of Charles II. Resumed his possession and government of NewYork, and delegated his power to Colonel Nichols, who ruled withwisdom and humanity. But the old Dutch Governor Stuyvesant remained inthe city over which he had so honorably presided, and prolonged theempire of Dutch manners, if not of Dutch arms. The banks of the Hudsoncontinued also to be peopled by the countrymen of the originalcolonists, who long preserved the language, customs, and religion ofHolland. New York, nevertheless, was a royal province, and theadministration was frequently intrusted to rapacious, unprincipled, and arbitrary governors. 

Thus were the various states which border on the Atlantic Oceancolonized, in which English laws, institutions, and language weredestined to be perpetuated. In 1688, the various colonies, of whichthere were twelve, contained about two hundred thousand inhabitants;and all of these were Protestants; all cherished the principles ofcivil and religious liberty, and sought, by industry, frugality andpatience, to secure independence and prosperity. From that period tothis, no nation has grown more rapidly; no one has ever developed moresurprising energies; no one has ever enjoyed greater social, political, and religious privileges. 

But the shores of North America were not colonized merely by theEnglish. On the banks of the St. Lawrence and Mississippi another bodyof colonists arrived, and introduced customs and institutions equallyforeign to those of the English and Spaniards. The French settlementsin Canada and Louisiana are now to be considered. 

[Sidenote: Discovery of the St. Lawrence. ]

Within seven years from the discovery of the continent, the fisheriesof Newfoundland were known to French adventurers. The St. Lawrence wasexplored in 1506, and plans of colonization were formed in 1518. In1534, James Cartier, a native of St. Malo, sailed up the River St. Lawrence; but the severity of the climate in winter prevented animmediate settlement. It was not until 1603 that any permanentcolonization was commenced. Quebec was then selected by SamuelChamplain, the father of the French settlements in Canada, as the sitefor a fort. In 1604, a charter was given, by Henry IV. , to an eminentCalvinist, De Monts, which gave him the sovereignty of Acadia, a tractembraced between the fortieth and forty-sixth degrees of northlatitude. The Huguenot emigrants were to enjoy their religion, themonopoly of the fur trade, and the exclusive control of the soil. Theyarrived at Nova Scotia the same year, and settled in Port Royal. 

In 1608, Quebec was settled by Champlain, who aimed at the glory offounding a state; and in 1627 he succeeded in establishing theauthority of the French on the banks of the St. Lawrence. ButChamplain was also a zealous Catholic, and esteemed the salvation of asoul more than the conquest of a kingdom. He therefore selectedFranciscan monks to effect the conversion of the Indians. But theywere soon supplanted by the Jesuits, who, patronized by the governmentin France, soon made the new world the scene of their strangeactivity. 

[Sidenote: Jesuit Missionaries. ]

At no period and in no country were Jesuit missionaries more untiringlaborers than amid the forests of North America. With the crucifix intheir hands, they wandered about with savage tribes, and byunparalleled labors of charity and benevolence, sought to convert themto the Christianity of Rome. As early as 1635, a college and ahospital were founded, by munificent patrons in France, for thebenefit of all the tribes of red men from the waters of Lake Superiorto the shores of the Kennebec. In 1641 Montreal, intended as a generalrendezvous for converted Indians was occupied, and soon became themost important station in Canada, next to the fortress of Quebec. Before Eliot had preached to the Indians around Boston, the intrepidmissionaries of the Jesuits had explored the shores of Lake Superior, had penetrated to the Falls of St. Mary's, and had visited theChippeways, the Hurons, the Iroquois, and the Mohawks. Soon after, they approached the Dutch settlements on the Hudson, explored thesources of the Mississippi, examined its various tributary streams, and floated down its mighty waters to its mouth. The missionariesclaimed the territories on the Gulf of Mexico for the king of France, and in 1684, Louisiana was colonized by Frenchmen. The indefatigableLa Salle, after having explored the Mississippi, from the Falls of St. Anthony to the sea, was assassinated by one of his envious followers, but not until he had earned the immortal fame of being the father ofwestern colonization. 

Thus were the North American settlements effected. In 1688, Englandpossessed those colonies which border on the Atlantic Ocean, fromMaine to Georgia. The French possessed Nova Scotia, Canada, Louisiana, and claimed the countries bordering on the Mississippi and itsbranches, from the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Superior, and also theterritories around the great lakes. 

A mutual jealousy, as was to be expected, sprung up between France andEngland respecting their colonial possessions. Both kingdoms aimed atthe sovereignty of North America. The French were entitled, perhaps, by right of discovery, to the greater extent of territory; but theircolonies were very unequal to those of the English in respect tonumbers, and still more so in moral elevation and intellectualculture. 

But Louis XIV. , then in the height of his power, meditated thecomplete subjection of the English settlements. The French alliedthemselves with the Indians, and savage wars were the result. TheMohawks and other tribes, encouraged by the French, committed fearfulmassacres at Deerfield and Haverhill, and the English settlers werekept in a state of constant alarm and fear. By the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, the colonists obtained peace and considerable accession ofterritory. In 1720, John Law proposed his celebrated financial schemeto the prince regent of France, and the Mississippi Company waschartered, and Louisiana colonized. Much profit was expected to bederived from this company. It will be seen, in another chapter, howmiserably it failed. It was based on wrong foundations, and theproject of deriving wealth from the colonies came to nought; nor didit result in a rapid colonization. 

[Sidenote: Prosperity of the English Colonies. ]

Meanwhile the English colonies advanced in wealth, numbers, andpolitical importance, and attracted the notice of the Englishgovernment. Sir Robert Walpole, in 1711, was solicited to tax thecolonies; but he nobly rejected the proposal. He encouraged trade tothe utmost latitude, and tribute was only levied by means ofconsumption of British manufactures. But restrictions weresubsequently imposed on colonial enterprise, which led to collisionsbetween the colonies and the mother country. The Southern colonieswere more favored than the Northern, but all of them were regardedwith the view of promoting the peculiar interests of Great Britain. Other subjects of dispute also arose; but, nevertheless, the colonies, especially those of New England, made rapid strides. There was ageneral diffusion of knowledge, the laws were well observed, and theministers of religion were an honor to their sacred calling. The earthwas subdued, and replenished with a hardy and religious set of men. Sentiments of patriotism and independence were ardently cherished. Thepeople were trained to protect themselves; and, in their townmeetings, learned to discuss political questions, and to understandpolitical rights. Some ecclesiastical controversies disturbed thepeace of parishes and communities, but did not retard the generalprosperity. Some great lights also appeared. David Brainerd performedlabors of disinterestedness and enlightened piety, which have neverbeen surpassed, and never equalled, even in zeal and activity, exceptby those of the earlier Jesuits. Jonathan Edwards stamped his geniuson the whole character of New England theology, and won the highesthonor as a metaphysician, even from European admirers. His treatise onthe Freedom of the Will has secured the praises of philosophers anddivines of all sects and parties from Hume to Chalmers, and can "neverbe attentively perused without a sentiment of admiration at thestrength and stretch of the human understanding. " Benjamin Franklinalso had arisen: he had not, at this early epoch, distinguishedhimself for philosophical discoveries; but he had attracted attentionas the editor of a newspaper, in which he fearlessly defended freedomof speech and the great rights of the people. But greater thanFranklin, greater than any hero which modern history has commemorated, was that young Virginia planter, who was then watching, with greatsolicitude, the interests and glory of his country, and preparinghimself for the great conflicts which have given him immortality. 

The growth of the colonies, and their great importance in the eyes ofthe Europeans, had now provoked the jealousy of the two leading powersof Europe, and the colonial struggle between England and France began. 

[Sidenote: French Encroachments. ]

The French claimed the right of erecting a chain of fortresses alongthe Ohio and the Mississippi, with a view to connect Canada withLouisiana, and thus obtain a monopoly of the fur trade with theIndians, and secure the possession of the finest part of the Americancontinent. But these designs were displeasing to the Englishcolonists, who had already extended their settlements far into theinterior. The English ministry was also indignant in view of thesemovements, by which the colonies were completely surrounded bymilitary posts. England protested; but the French artfully protractednegotiations until the fortifications were completed. 

It was to protest against the erection of these fortresses that GeorgeWashington, then twenty-three years of age, was sent by the colony ofVirginia to the banks of the Ohio. That journey through the tracklesswilderness, attended but by one person, in no slight degree marked himout, and prepared him for his subsequently great career. 

While the disputes about the forts were carried on between thecabinets of France and England, the French prosecuted theirencroachments in America with great boldness, which doubtless hastenedthe rupture between the two countries. Orders were sent to thecolonies to drive the French from their usurpations in Nova Scotia, and from their fortified posts upon the Ohio. Then commenced thatgreat war, which resulted in the loss of the French possessions inAmerica. But this war was also allied with the contests which grew outof the Austrian Succession, and therefore will be presented in aseparate chapter on the Pelham administration, during which the SevenYears' War, in the latter years of the reign of George II. , commenced. 

[Sidenote: European Settlements in the East. ]

But the colonial jealousy between England and France existed notmerely in view of the North American colonies, but also those in theEast Indies; and these must be alluded to in order to form a generalidea of European colonization, and of the causes which led to themercantile importance of Great Britain, as well as to the great warswhich desolated the various European nations. 

From the difficulties in the American colonies, we turn to those, therefore, which existed in the opposite quarter of the globe. Even tothose old countries had European armies penetrated; even thereEuropean cupidity and enterprise were exercised. 

As late as 1742, the territories of the English in India scarcelyextended beyond the precincts of the towns in which were located theEast India Company's servants. The first English settlement ofimportance was on the Island of Java; but, in 1658, a grant of landwas obtained on the Coromandel coast, near Madras, where was erectedthe strong fortress of St. George. In 1668, the Island of Bombay wasceded by the crown of Portugal to Charles II. , and appointed thecapital of the British settlements in India. In 1698, the English hada settlement on the Hooghly, which afterwards became the metropolis ofBritish power. 

[Sidenote: French Settlements in India. ]

But the Dutch, and Portuguese, and French had also colonies in Indiafor purposes of trade. Louis XIV. Established a company, in imitationof the English, which sought a settlement on the Hooghly. The Frenchcompany also had built a fort on the coast of the Carnatic, abouteighty miles south of Madras, called Pondicherry, and had colonizedtwo fertile islands in the Indian Ocean, which they called the Isle ofFrance and the Isle of Bourbon. The possessions of the French werecontrolled by two presidencies, one on the Isle of France, and theother at Pondicherry. 

[Sidenote: La Bourdonnais and Dupleix. ]

When the war broke out between England and France, in 1744, these twoFrench presidencies were ruled by two men of superior genius, --LaBourdonnais and Dupleix, --both of them men of great experience inIndian affairs, and both devoted to the interests of the company, sofar as their own personal ambition would permit. When CommodoreBurnet, with an English squadron, was sent into the Indian seas, LaBourdonnais succeeded in fitting out an expedition to oppose it, andeven contemplated the capture of Madras. No decisive action was foughtat sea; but the French governor succeeded in taking Madras. Thissuccess displeased the Nabob of the Carnatic, and he sent a letter toDupleix, and complained of the aggression of his countrymen inattacking a place under his protection. Dupleix, envious of the fameof La Bourdonnais, and not pleased with the terms of capitulation, asbeing too favorable to the English, claimed the right of annulling theconquest, since Madras, when taken, would fall under his ownpresidency. 

The contentions between these two Frenchmen prevented La Bourdonnaisfrom following up the advantage of his victory, and he failed in hisattempts to engage the English fleet, and, in consequence, returned toFrance, and died from the effects of an unjust imprisonment in theBastile. 

Dupleix, after the departure of La Bourdonnais, brought the principalinhabitants of Madras to Pondicherry. But some of them contrived toescape. Among them was the celebrated Clive, then a clerk in amercantile house. He entered as an ensign into the company's service, and soon found occasion to distinguish himself. 

But Dupleix, master of Madras, now formed the scheme of founding anIndian empire, and of expelling the English from the Carnatic. AndIndia was in a state to favor his enterprises. The empire of the GreatMogul, whose capital was Delhi, was tottering from decay. It had been, in the sixteenth century, the most powerful empire in the world. Themagnificence of his palaces astonished even Europeans accustomed tothe splendor of Paris and Versailles. His viceroys ruled overprovinces larger and richer than either France or England. And eventhe lieutenants of these viceroys frequently aspired to independence. 

The Nabob of Arcot was one of these latter princes. He hated theFrench, and befriended the English. On the death of the Viceroy of theDeccan, to whom he was subject, in 1748, Dupleix conceived hisgigantic scheme of conquest. To the throne of this viceroy there wereseveral claimants, two of whom applied to the French for assistance. This was what the Frenchman desired, and he allied himself with thepretenders. With the assistance of the French, Mirzappa Juy obtainedthe viceroyalty. Dupleix was splendidly rewarded, and was intrustedwith the command of seven thousand Indian cavalry, and received apresent of two hundred thousand pounds. 

The only place on the Carnatic which remained in possession of therightful viceroy was Trichinopoly, and this was soon invested by theFrench and Indian forces. 

To raise this siege, and turn the tide of French conquest, became theobject of Clive, then twenty-five years of age. He represented to hissuperior the importance of this post, and also of striking a decisiveblow. He suggested the plan of an attack on Arcot itself, theresidence of the nabob. His project was approved, and he was placed atthe head of a force of three hundred sepoys and two hundredEnglishmen. The city was taken by surprise, and its capture inducedthe nabob to relinquish the siege of Trichinopoly in order to retakehis capital. But Clive so intrenched his followers, that theysuccessfully defended the place after exhibiting prodigies of valor. The fortune of war turned to the side of the gallant Englishman, andDupleix, who was no general, retreated before the victors. Cliveobtained the command of Fort St. David, an important fortress nearMadras, and soon controlled the Carnatic. 

About this time, the settlements on the Hooghly were plundered bySuraj-w Dowlah, Viceroy of Bengal. Bengal was the most fertile andpopulous province of the empire of the Great Mogul. It was watered bythe Ganges, the sacred river of India, and its cities weresurprisingly rich. Its capital was Moorshedabad, a city nearly aslarge as London; and here the young viceroy lived in luxury andeffeminacy, and indulged in every species of cruelty and folly. Hehated the English of Calcutta, and longed to plunder them. Heaccordingly seized the infant city, and shut up one hundred and fortyof the colonists in a dungeon of the fort, a room twenty feet byfourteen, with only two small windows; and in a few hours, one hundredand seventeen of the English died. The horrors of that night have beensplendidly painted by Macaulay in his essay on Clive, and the place oftorment, called the _Black Hole of Calcutta_, is synonymous withsuffering and misery. Clive resolved to avenge this insult to hiscountrymen. An expedition was fitted out at Madras to punish theinhuman nabob, consisting of nine hundred Europeans and fifteenhundred sepoys. It was a small force, but proved sufficient. Calcuttawas recovered and the army of the nabob was routed. Clive intriguedwith the enemies of the despot in his own city; and, by means ofunparalleled treachery, dissimulation, art, and violence, Suraj-wDowlah was deposed, and Meer Jaffier, one of the conspirators, wasmade nabob in his place. In return for the services of Clive, the newviceroy splendidly rewarded him. A hundred boats conveyed thetreasures of Bengal down the river to Calcutta. Clive himself, who hadwalked between heaps of gold and silver, crowned with diamonds andrubies, condescended to receive a present of three hundred thousandpounds. His moderation has been commended by his biographers in notasking for a million. 

The elevation of Meer Jaffier was, of course, displeasing to theimbecile Emperor of India, and a large army was sent to dethrone him. The nabob appealed, in his necessity, to his allies, the English, and, with the powerful assistance of the Europeans, the forces of thesuccessor of the great Aurungzebe were signally routed. But the greatsums he was obliged to bestow on his allies, and the encroachingspirit which they manifested, changed his friendship into enmity. Heplotted with the Dutch and the French to overturn the power of theEnglish. Clive divined his object, and Meer Jaffier was deposed in histurn. The Viceroy of Bengal was but the tool of his Englishprotectors, and British power was firmly planted in the centre ofIndia. Calcutta became the capital of a great empire, and the EastIndia Company, a mere assemblage of merchants and stockjobbers, bytheir system of perfidy, craft and violence, became the rulers anddisposers of provinces which Alexander had coveted in vain. Theservants of this company made their fortunes, and untold wealth wastransported to England. Clive obtained a fortune of forty thousandpounds a year, an Irish peerage, and a seat in the House of Commons. He became an object of popular idolatry, courted by ministers, andextolled by Pitt. He was several times appointed governor-general ofthe country he had conquered, and to him England is indebted for thefoundation of her power in India. But his fame and fortune finallyexcited the jealousy of his countrymen, and he was made to bear thesins of the company which he had enriched. The malignity with which hewas pursued, and the disease which he acquired in India, operatedunfortunately on a temper naturally irritable; his reason becameoverpowered, and he died, in 1774, by his own hand. 

[Sidenote: Conquest of India. ]

The subsequent career of Hastings, and final conquest of India, formpart of the political history of England itself, during thoseadministrations which yet remain to be described. The colonization ofAmerica and the East Indies now became involved with the politics ofrival statesmen; and its history can only be appreciated byconsidering those acts and principles which marked the career of theNewcastles and the Pitts. The administration of the Pelhams, therefore, next claims attention. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The best histories pertaining to the conquests of the Spaniards are undoubtedly those of Mr. Prescott. Irving's Columbus should also be consulted. For the early history of the North American colonies, the attention of students is directed to Grahame's and Bancroft's Histories of the United States. In regard to India, see Elphinstone's, Gleig's, Ormes's, and Mills's Histories of India; Malcolm's Life of Clive; and Macaulay's Essay on Clive. For the contemporaneous history of Great Britain, the best works are those of Tyndal, Smollett, Lord Mahon, and Belsham; Russell's Modern Europe; the Pictorial History of England; and the continuation of Mackintosh, in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

THE REIGN OF GEORGE II. 

The English nation acquiesced in the government of Sir Robert Walpolefor nearly thirty years--the longest administration in the annals ofthe country. And he was equal to the task, ruling, on the whole, beneficently, promoting peace, regulating the finances, andencouraging those great branches of industry which lie at thefoundation of English wealth and power. But the intrigues of rivalpoliticians, and the natural desire of change, which all parties feelafter a long repose, plunged the nation into war, and forced the ableminister to retire. The opposition, headed by the Prince of Wales, supported by such able statesmen as Bolingbroke, Carteret, Chesterfield, Pulteney, Windham, and Pitt, and sustained by thewritings of those great literary geniuses whom Walpole disdained andneglected, compelled George II. , at last, to part with a man who hadconquered his narrow prejudices. 

But the Tories did not come into power on the retirement of Walpole. His old confederates remained at the head of affairs, and Carteret, afterwards Lord Granville, the most brilliant man of his age, becamethe leading minister. But even he, so great in debate, and sodistinguished for varied attainments, did not long retain his place. None of the abuses which existed under the former administration wereremoved; and moreover the war which the nation had clamored for, hadproved disastrous. He also had to bear the consequences of Walpole'stemporizing policy which could no longer be averted. 

[Sidenote: The Pelhams. ]

The new ministry was headed by Henry Pelham, as first lord of thetreasury and chancellor of the exchequer, and by the Duke ofNewcastle, as principal secretary of state. These two men formed, also, a coalition with the leading members of both houses ofparliament, Tories as well as Whigs; and, for the first time since theaccession of the Stuarts, there was no opposition. This greatcoalition was called the "Broad Bottom, " and comprehended the Duke ofBedford, the Earls of Chesterfield and Harrington, Lords Lyttleton andHardwicke, Sir Henry Cotton, Mr Doddington, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Murray. The three latter statesmen were not then formidable. 

The Pelhams were descended from one of the oldest, proudest andrichest families in England, and had an immense parliamentaryinfluence from their aristocratic connections, their wealth, and theirexperience. They were not remarkable for genius so much as forsagacity, tact, and intrigue. They were extremely ambitious, and fondof place and power. They ruled England as the representatives of thearistocracy--the last administration which was able to defy thenational will. After their fall, the people had a greater voice in theappointment of ministers. Pitt and Fox were commoners in a differentsense from what Walpole was, and represented that class which has eversince ruled England, --not nobles, not the democracy, but a classbetween them, composed of the gentry, landed proprietors, lawyers, merchants, manufacturers, men of leisure, and their dependants. 

The administration of the Pelhams is chiefly memorable for the Scotchrebellion of 1745, and for the great European war which grew out ofcolonial and commercial ambition, and the encroachments of Fredericthe Great. 

[Sidenote: The Pretender Charles Edward Stuart. ]

The Scotch rebellion was produced by the attempts of the youngPretender, Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir Stuart, to regain thethrone of his ancestors. His adventures have the interest of romance, and have generally excited popular sympathy. He was born at Rome in1720; served, at the age of fifteen, under the Duke of Berwick, inSpain, and, at the age of twenty, received overtures from somediscontented people of Scotland to head an insurrection. There was, atthis time, great public distress, and George II. Was exceedinglyunpopular. The Jacobites were powerful, and thousands wished for achange, including many persons of rank and influence. 

With only seven followers, in a small vessel, he landed on one of theWestern Islands, 18th of July, 1745. Even had the promises which hadbeen made to him by France, or by people in Scotland, been fulfilled, his enterprise would have been most hazardous. But, without money, men, or arms, his hopes were desperate. Still he cherished thatpresumptuous self-confidence which so often passes for bravery, andsucceeded better than could have been anticipated. Several chieftainsof the Highland clans joined his standard, and he had the faculty ofgaining the hearts of his followers. At Borrodaile occurred his firstinterview with the chivalrous Donald Cameron of Lochiel, who wasperfectly persuaded of the desperate character of his enterprise, butnevertheless aided it with generous self-devotion. 

The standard of Charles Edward was raised at Glenfinnan, on the 19thof August, and a little band of seven hundred adventurers andenthusiastic Highlanders resolved on the conquest of England! Neverwas devotion to an unfortunate cause more romantic and sincere. Neverwere energies more generously made, or more miserably directed. Butthe first gush of enthusiasm and bravery was attended with success, and the Pretender soon found himself at the head of fifteen hundredmen, and on his way to Edinburgh, marching among people friendly tohis cause, whom he endeared by every attention and gentlemanlyartifice. The simple people of the north of Scotland were won by hissmiles and courtesy, and were astonished at the exertions which theyoung prince made, and the fatigues he was able to endure. 

On the 15th of September, Charles had reached Linlithgow, only sixteenmiles from Edinburgh, where he was magnificently entertained in theancient and favorite palace of the kings of Scotland. Two days after, he made his triumphal entry into the capital of his ancestors, theplace being unprepared for resistance. Colonel Gardiner, with hisregiment of dragoons, was faithful to his trust, and the magistratesof Edinburgh did all in their power to prevent the surrender of thecity. But the great body of the citizens preferred to trust to theclemency of Charles, than run the risk of defence. 

[Sidenote: Surrender of Edinburgh. ]

Thus, without military stores, or pecuniary resources, or powerfulfriends, simply by the power of persuasion, the Pretender, in theshort space of two months from his landing in Scotland, quietly tookpossession of the most powerful city of the north. The Jacobites putno restraint to their idolatrous homage, and the ladies welcomed theyoung and handsome chevalier with extravagant adulation. Even theWhigs pitied him, and permitted him to enjoy his brief hour ofvictory. 

At Edinburgh, Charles received considerable reënforcement, and tookfrom the city one thousand stand of arms. He gave his followers butlittle time for repose, and soon advanced against the royal armycommanded by Sir John Cope. The two armies met at Preston Pans, andwere of nearly equal force. The attack was made by the invader, andwas impetuous and unlooked for. Nothing could stand before theenthusiasm and valor of the Highlanders, and in five minutes the routcommenced, and a great slaughter of the regular army occurred. Amongthose who fell was the distinguished Colonel Gardiner, an old veteran, who refused to fly. 

[Sidenote: Success of the Pretender. ]

Charles followed up his victory with moderation, and soon was masterof all Scotland. He indulged his taste for festivities, at Holyrood, for a while, and neglected no means to conciliate the Scotch. Heflattered their prejudices, gave balls and banquets, made love totheir most beautiful women, and denied no one access to his presence. Poets sang his praises, and women extolled his heroism and beauty. Thelight, the gay, the romantic, and the adventurous were on his side;but the substantial and wealthy classes were against him, for theyknew he must be conquered in the end. 

Still his success had been remarkable, and for it he was indebted tothe Highlanders, who did not wish to make him king of England, butonly king of Scotland. But Charles deceived them. He wanted thesceptre of George II. ; and when he commenced his march into England, their spirits flagged, and his cause became hopeless. There was oneclass of men who were inflexibly hostile to him--the Presbyterianministers. They looked upon him, from the first, with coldness andharshness, and distrusted both his religion and sincerity. On them allhis arts, and flattery, and graces were lost; and they represented thesubstantial part of the Scottish nation. It is extremely doubtfulwhether Charles could ever have held Edinburgh, even if English armieshad not been sent against him. 

But Charles had played a desperate game from the beginning, for thesmall chance of winning a splendid prize. He, therefore, after restinghis troops, and collecting all the force he could, turned his face toEngland at the head of five thousand men, well armed and well clothed, but discontented and dispirited. They had never contemplated theinvasion of England, but only the recovery of the ancient independenceof Scotland. 

[Sidenote: The Retreat of the Pretender. ]

On the 8th of November, the Pretender set foot upon English soil, andentered Carlisle in triumph. But his forces, instead of increasing, diminished, and no popular enthusiasm supported the courage of histroops. But he advanced towards the south, and reached Derbyunmolested on the 4th of December. There he learned that the royalarmy, headed by the Duke of Cumberland, with twelve thousand veterans, was advancing rapidly against him. 

His followers clamored to return, and refused to advance another step. They now fully perceived that success was not only hopeless, but thatvictory would be of no advantage to them; that they would besacrificed by a man who only aimed at the conquest of England. 

Charles was well aware of the desperate nature of the contest, but hadno desire to retreat. His situation was not worse than what it hadbeen when he landed on the Hebrides. Having penetrated to within onehundred and twenty miles of London, against the expectations of everyone, why should he not persevere? Some unlooked-for success, somelucky incidents, might restore him to the throne of his grandfather. Besides, a French army of ten thousand was about to land in England. The Duke of Norfolk, the first nobleman in the country, was ready todeclare in his favor. London was in commotion. A chance remained. 

But his followers thought only of their homes, and Charles was obligedto yield to an irresistible necessity. Like Richard Coeur de Lionafter the surrender of Acre, he was compelled to return, withoutrealizing the fruit of bravery and success. Like the lion-heartedking, pensive and sad, sullen and miserable, he gave the order toretreat. His spirits, hitherto buoyant and gladsome, now fell, anddespondency and despair succeeded vivacity and hope. He abandonedhimself to grief and vexation, lingered behind his retreating army, and was reckless of his men and of their welfare. And well he may havebeen depressed. The motto of Hampden, "_Vestigia nulla retrorsum_, "had also governed him. But others would not be animated by it, and hewas ruined. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Culloden. ]

But his miserable and dejected army succeeded in reaching their nativesoil, although pursued by the cavalry of two powerful armies, in themidst of a hostile population, and amid great sufferings from hungerand fatigue. On the 26th of December, he entered Glasgow, levied acontribution on the people, and prepared himself for his final battle. He retreated to the Highlands, and spent the winter in recruiting histroops, and in taking fortresses. On the 15th of April, 1746, he drewup his army on the moor of Culloden, near Inverness, with thedesperate resolution of attacking, with vastly inferior forces, theDuke of Cumberland, intrenched nine miles distant. The design wasfoolish and unfortunate. It was early discovered; and the fresh troopsof the royal duke attacked the dispirited, scattered, and weariedfollowers of Charles Edward before they could form themselves inbattle array. They defended themselves with valor. But what is valoragainst overwhelming force? The army of Charles was totally routed, and his hopes were blasted forever. 

The most horrid barbarities and cruelties were inflicted by thevictors. The wounded were left to die. The castles of rebel chieftainswere razed to the ground. Herds and flocks were driven away, and thepeople left to perish with hunger. Some of the captives were sent toBarbadoes, others were imprisoned, and many were shot. A reward ofthirty thousand pounds was placed on the head of the Pretender; but henevertheless escaped. After wandering a while as a fugitive, disguised, wearied, and miserable, hunted from fortress to fortress, and from island to island, he succeeded, by means of the unparalleledloyalty and fidelity of his few Highland followers, in securing avessel, and in escaping to France. His adventures among the WesternIslands, especially those which happened while wandering, in thedisguise of a female servant, with Flora Macdonald, are highlyromantic and wonderful. Equally wonderful is the fact that, of themany to whom his secret was intrusted, not one was disposed to betrayhim, even in view of so splendid a bribe as thirty thousand pounds. But this fact, though surprising, is not inconceivable. Had Washingtonbeen unfortunate in his contest with the mother country, and had hewandered as a fugitive amid the mountains of Vermont, would not manyAmericans have shielded him, even in view of a reward of one hundredthousand pounds?

[Sidenote: Latter Days of the Pretender. ]

The latter days of the Pretender were spent in Rome and Florence. Hemarried a Polish princess, and assumed the title of _Duke of Albany_. He never relinquished the hope of securing the English crown, andalways retained his politeness and grace of manner. But he became anobject of pity, not merely from his poverty and misfortunes, but alsofrom the vice of intemperance, which he acquired in Scotland. He diedof apoplexy, in 1788, and left no legitimate issue. The last male heirof the house of Stuart was the Cardinal of York, who died in 1807, andwho was buried in St. Peter's Cathedral; over whose mortal remains waserected a marble monument, by Canova, through the munificence ofGeorge IV. , to whom the cardinal had left the crown jewels whichJames II. Had carried with him to France. This monument bears thenames of James III. , Charles III. , and Henry IX. , kings of England;titles never admitted by the English. With the battle of Cullodenexpired the hopes of the Catholics and Jacobites to restoreCatholicism and the Stuarts. 

The great European war, which was begun by Sir Robert Walpole, notlong before his retirement, was another great event which happenedduring the administration of the Pelhams, and with which theiradministration was connected. The Spanish war was followed by the warof the Austrian Succession. 

[Sidenote: Maria Theresa. ]

Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary, ascended the oldest and proudestthrone of Europe, --that of Germany, --amid a host of claimants. TheElector of Bavaria laid claim to her hereditary dominions in Bohemia;the King of Sardinia made pretension to the duchy of Milan; while theKings of Poland, Spain, France, and Prussia disputed with her herrights to the whole Austrian succession. Never were acts of grossinjustice meditated with greater audacity. Just as the young andbeautiful princess ascended the throne of Charlemagne, amidembarrassments and perplexities, --such as an exhausted treasury, asmall army, a general scarcity, threatened hostilities with the Turks, and absolute war with France, --the new king of Prussia, Frederic, surnamed the Great, availing himself of her distresses, seized one ofthe finest provinces of her empire. The first notice which the queenhad of the seizure of Silesia, was an insulting speech from thePrussian ambassador. "I come, " said he, "with safety for the house ofAustria on the one hand, and the imperial crown for your royalhighness on the other. The troops of my master are at the service ofthe queen, and cannot fail of being acceptable, at a time when she isin want of both. And as the king, my master, from the situation of hisdominions, will be exposed to great danger from this alliance with theQueen of Hungary, it is hoped that, as an indemnification, the queenwill not offer him less than the whole duchy of Silesia. "

The queen, of course, was indignant in view of this cool piece ofvillany, and prepared to resist. War with all the continental powerswas the result. France joined the coalition to deprive the queen ofher empire. Two French armies invaded Germany. The Elector of Bavariamarched, with a hostile army, to within eight miles of Vienna. TheKing of Prussia made himself master of Silesia. Abandoned by all herallies, --without an army, or ministers, or money, --the queen fled toHungary, her hereditary dominions, and threw herself on the generosityof her subjects. She invoked the states of the Diet, and, clad in deepmourning, with the crown of St. Stephen on her head, and a cimeter ather side, she traversed the hall in which her nobles were assembled, and addressed them, in the immortal language of Rome, respecting herwrongs and her distresses. Her faithful subjects responded to hercall; and youth, beauty, and rank, in distress, obtained their naturaltriumph. "A thousand swords leaped from their scabbards, " and the oldhall rung with the cry, "We will die for our queen, Maria Theresa. "Tears started from the eyes of the queen, whom misfortunes and insultcould not bend, and called forth, even more than her words, theenthusiasm of her subjects. 

It was in defence of this injured and noble queen that the Englishparliament voted supplies and raised armies. This was the war whichcharacterized the Pelham administration, and to which Walpole wasopposed. But it will be further presented, when allusion is made toFrederic the Great. 

France no sooner formed an alliance with Prussia, against Austria, than the "balance of power" seemed to be disturbed. To restore thisbalance, and preserve Austria, was the aim of England. To the desireto preserve this power may be traced most of the wars of theeighteenth century. The idea of a balance of power was the leadingprinciple which animated all the diplomatic transactions of Europe formore than a century. 

By the treaty of Breslau, (1742, ) Maria Theresa yielded up to Fredericthe province of Silesia, and Europe might have remained at peace. Butas England and France were both involved in the contest, their oldspirit of rivalry returned; and, from auxiliaries, they becameprincipals in the war, and soon renewed it. The theatre of strife waschanged from Germany to Holland, and the arms of France weretriumphant. The Duke of Cumberland was routed by Marshal Saxe at thegreat battle of Fontenoy; and this battle restored peace, for a while, to Germany. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, husband of Maria Theresa, waselected Emperor of Germany, and assumed the title of Francis I. 

But it was easier to restore tranquillity to Germany, than peacebetween England and France; both powers panting for military glory, and burning with mutual jealousy. The peace of Aix la Chapelle, in1748, was a truce rather than a treaty; and France and England soonfound occasion to plunge into new hostilities. 

[Sidenote: Capture of Louisburg. ]

During the war of the Austrian Succession, hostilities had not beenconfined to the continent of Europe. As colonial jealousy was one ofthe animating principles of two of the leading powers in the contest, the warfare extended to the colonies themselves. A body of French, from Cape Breton, surprised the little English garrison of Canseau, destroyed the fort and fishery, and removed eighty men, as prisonersof war, to Louisburg--the strongest fortress, next to Quebec, inFrench America. These men were afterwards sent to Boston, on parole, and, while there, communicated to Governor Shirley the state of thefortress in which they had been confined. Shirley resolved to captureit, and the legislature of Massachusetts voted supplies for theexpedition. All the New England colonies sent volunteers; and theunited forces, of about four thousand men were put under the commandof William Pepperell, a merchant at Kittery Point, near Portsmouth. The principal part of the forces was composed of fishermen; but theywere Yankees. Amid the fogs of April, this little army, rich inexpedients, set sail to take a fortress which five hundred men coulddefend against five thousand. But they were successful, aided by anEnglish fleet; and, after a siege of three months, Louisburgsurrendered, (1745)--justly deemed the greatest achievement of thewhole war. 

[Sidenote: Great Colonial Contest. ]

But the French did not relinquish their hopes of gaining an ascendencyon the American continent, and prosecuted their labors of erecting onthe Ohio their chain of fortifications, to connect Canada withLouisiana. The erection of these forts was no small cause of thebreaking out of fresh hostilities. When the contest was renewedbetween Maria Theresa and Frederic the Great, and the famous SevenYears' War began, the English resolved to conquer all the Frenchpossessions in America. 

Without waiting, however, for directions from England, GovernorDinwiddie, of Virginia, raised a regiment of troops, of which GeorgeWashington was made lieutenant-colonel, and with which he marchedacross the wilderness to attack Fort Du Quesne, now Pittsburg, at thejunction of the Alleghany and Monongahela Rivers. 

That unsuccessful expedition was the commencement of the greatcolonial contest in which Canada was conquered. Early in 1755, GeneralBraddock was sent to America to commence offensive operations. Thecolonies coöperated, and three expeditions were planned; one to attackFort Du Quesne, a second to attack Fort Niagara, and a third to attackCrown Point. The first was to be composed of British troops, underBraddock, the second of American, under Governor Shirley, and thethird of militia of the northern colonies. 

The expedition against Fort Du Quesne was a memorable failure. Braddock was a brave man, but unfitted for his work, Hyde Park havinghitherto been the only field of his military operations. Moreover, with that presumption and audacity which then characterized hiscountrymen, he affected sovereign contempt for his Americanassociates, and would listen to no advice. Unacquainted with Indianwarfare, and ignorant of the country, he yet pressed towards theinterior, until, within ten miles of Fort Du Quesne, he was surprisedby a body of French and Indians, and taken in an ambuscade. Instantretreat might still have saved him; but he was too proud not to fightaccording to rule; and he fell mortally wounded. Washington was theonly mounted officer that escaped being killed or wounded. By hisprudent and skilful management, he saved half of his men, who formedafter the battle, and effected a retreat. 

The other two expeditions also failed, chiefly through want of unionbetween the provincial governor and the provincial assemblies, andalso from the moral effects of the defeat of Braddock. Moreover, thecolonies perfectly understood that they were fighting, not forliberty, but for the glory and ambition of the mother country, andtherefore did not exhibit the ardor they evinced in the revolutionarystruggle. 

But the failure of these expeditions contributed to make the ministryof the Duke of Newcastle unpopular. Other mistakes were also made inthe old world. The conduct of Admiral Byng in the Mediterraneanexcited popular clamor. The repeated disappointments and miscarriages, the delay of armaments, the neglect of opportunities, the absurddisposition of fleets, were numbered among the misfortunes whichresulted from a weak and incapable ministry. Stronger men weredemanded by the indignant voice of the nation, and the Duke ofNewcastle, first lord of the treasury, since the death of his brother, was obliged to call Mr. Pitt and Mr. Legge--the two most popularcommoners of England--into the cabinet. But the new administration didnot work harmoniously. It was an emblem of that image whichNebuchadnezzar beheld in a vision, with a head of gold, and legs ofiron, and feet of clay. Pitt and Legge were obliged by their colleagueto resign. But their removal incensed the whole nation, and so greatwas the clamor, that the king was compelled to reinstate the popularidols--the only men capable of managing affairs at that crisis. Pittbecame secretary of state, and Legge chancellor of the exchequer. TheDuke of Newcastle, after being at the head of administration tenyears, was, reluctantly, compelled to resign. The Duke of Devonshirebecame nominally the premier, but Pitt was the ruling spirit in thecabinet. 

[Sidenote: Character of the Duke of Newcastle. ]

The character of the Duke of Newcastle is thus sketched by HoraceWalpole; "He had no pride, but infinite self-love. Jealousy was thegreat source of all his faults. There was no expense to which he wasaddicted but generosity. His houses, gardens, table, and equipage, swallowed immense sums, and the sums he owed were only exceeded bythose he wasted. He loved business immoderately, but was always doingit; he never did it. His speeches were copious in words, but empty andunmeaning, his professions extravagant, and his curiosity insatiable. He was a secretary of state without intelligence, a duke withoutmoney, a man of infinite intrigue without secrecy, and a ministerhated by all parties, without being turned out by either. " "All ablemen, " adds Macaulay, "ridiculed him as a dunce, a driveller, a childwho never knew his own mind an hour together; and yet he overreachedthem all. "

[Sidenote: Unpopularity of the Pelhams. ]

The Pelham administration cannot, on the whole, be called fortunate, nor, on the other hand, a disgraceful one. The Pelhams "showedthemselves, " says Smyth, "friendly to the principles of mildgovernment. " With all their faults, they were tolerant, peaceful, prudent; they had the merit of respecting public opinion; and thoughthey were not fitted to advance the prosperity of their country by anyexertions of political genius, they were not blind to suchopportunities as fairly presented themselves. But they were not fittedfor the stormy times in which they lived, and quietly yielded to thegenius of a man whom they did not like, and whom the king absolutelyhated. George II. , against his will, was obliged to intrust the helmof state to the only man in the nation capable of holding it. 

The administration of William Pitt is emphatically the history of thecivilized world, during a period of almost universal war. It was forhis talents as a war minister that he was placed at the head of thegovernment, and his policy, like that of his greater son, in a stillmore stormy epoch, was essentially warlike. In the eyes of hiscontemporaries, his administration was brilliant and successful, andhe undoubtedly raised England to a high pitch of military glory; butglory, alas! most dearly purchased, since it led to the imposition oftaxes beyond a parallel, and the vast increase of the national debt. 

[Sidenote: Rise of William Pitt. ]

He was born in 1708, of good family, his grandfather having beengovernor of Madras, and the purchaser of the celebrated diamond whichbears his name, and which was sold to the regent of France for onehundred and thirty-five thousand pounds. William Pitt was sent toOxford at the age of seventeen, and at twenty-seven, became a memberof parliament. From the first, he was heard with attention, and, whenyears and experience had given him wisdom and power, his eloquence wasoverwhelming. No one ever equalled him in brilliant invective andscorching sarcasm. He had not the skill of Fox in debate, nor was he agreat reasoner, like Murray; he did not talk philosophy, like Burke, nor was he master of details, like his son; but he had an air ofsincerity, a vehemence of feeling, an intense enthusiasm, and a moralelevation of sentiment, which bore every thing away before him. 

When Walpole was driven from power, Pitt exerted his eloquence inbehalf of the Pelham government. Being personally obnoxious to theking, he obtained no office. But he was not a man to be amused bypromises long, and, as he would not render his indispensable serviceswithout a reward, he was made paymaster of the forces--a lucrativeoffice, but one which did not give him a seat in the cabinet. Thisoffice he retained for eight years, which were years of peace. Butwhen the horizon was overclouded by the death of Henry Pelham, in1754, and difficulties arose between France and England respectingNorth America and the East Indies; when disasters in war tarnished theglory of the British arms, and the Duke of Newcastle showed hisincapacity to meet the national crisis, Pitt commenced a furiousopposition. Of course he was dismissed from office. But the Duke ofNewcastle could not do without him, and the king was obliged to callhim into the cabinet as secretary of state, in 1756. But theadministration did not work. The king opposed the views of Pitt, andhe was compelled to resign. Then followed disasters and mistakes. Theresignation of the Duke of Newcastle became an imperative necessity. Despondency and gloom hung over the nation, and he was left withoutefficient aid in the House of Commons. Nothing was left to the kingbut to call in the aid of the man he hated; and Pitt, as well asLegge, were again reinstated, the Duke of Devonshire remainingnominally at the head of the administration. 

But this administration only lasted five months, during which AdmiralByng was executed, and the Seven Years' War, of which Frederic ofPrussia was the hero, fairly commenced. In 1757, Pitt and hiscolleague were again dismissed. But never was popular resentment morefierce and terrible. Again was the king obliged to bend to the "greatcommoner. " An arrangement was made, and a coalition formed. Pittbecame secretary of state, and virtual premier, but the Duke ofNewcastle came in as first lord of the treasury. But Pitt selected thecabinet. His brother-in-law, Lord Temple, was made keeper of the privyseal, and Lord Grenville was made treasurer of the navy; Fox becamepaymaster of the forces; the Duke of Bedford received the lordlieutenancy of Ireland; Hardwicke, the greatest lawyer of his agebecame lord chancellor; Legge, the ablest financier, was madechancellor of the exchequer. Murray, a little while before, had beenelevated to the bench, as Lord Mansfield. There was scarcely aneminent man in the House of Commons who was not made a member of theadministration. All the talent of the nation was laid at the feet ofPitt, and he had the supreme direction of the army and of foreignaffairs. 

Then truly commenced the brilliant career of Pitt. He immediatelyprosecuted hostilities with great boldness, and on a gigantic scale. Immense armies were raised and sent to all parts of the world. 

[Sidenote: Brilliant Military Successes. ]

But nothing raised the reputation of Pitt so highly as militaryoperations in America. He planned, immediately on his assumption ofsupreme power as virtual dictator of England, three greatexpeditions--one against Louisburg, a second against Ticonderoga, anda third against Fort Du Quesne. Two of these were attended withtriumphant success, (1758. )

Louisburg, which had been surrendered to France by the treaty of Aixla Chapelle, was reduced by General Amherst, though only with a forceof fourteen thousand men. 

General Forbes marched, with eight thousand men, against Fort DuQuesne; but it was abandoned by the enemy before he reached it. 

Ticonderoga was not, however, taken, although the expedition wasconducted by General Abercrombie, with a force of sixteen thousandmen. 

Thus nearly the largest military force ever known at one time inAmerica was employed nearly a century ago, by William Pitt, composedof fifty thousand men, of whom twenty-two thousand were regulartroops. 

[Sidenote: Military Successes in America. ]

The campaign of 1759 was attended with greater results than even thatof the preceding year. General Amherst succeeded Abercrombie, and theplan for the reduction of Canada was intrusted to him for execution. Three great expeditions were projected: one was to be commanded byGeneral Wolfe, who had distinguished himself at the siege ofLouisburg, and who had orders from the war secretary to ascend the St. Lawrence, escorted by the fleet, and lay siege to Quebec. The secondarmy, of twelve thousand men, under General Amherst, was ordered toreduce Ticonderoga and Crown Point, cross Lake Champlain, and proceedalong the River Richelieu to the banks of the St. Lawrence, joinGeneral Wolfe, and assist in the reduction of Quebec. The third armywas sent to Fort Niagara, the most important post in French America, since it commanded the lakes, and overawed the whole country of theSix Nations. After the reduction of this fort, the army was ordereddown the St. Lawrence to besiege Montreal. 

That this project was magnificent, and showed the comprehensivemilitary genius of Pitt, cannot be doubted. But that it was easy ofexecution may well be questioned, when it is remembered that thenavigation of the St. Lawrence was difficult and dangerous; that thefortifications and strength of Quebec were unrivalled in the newworld; that the French troops between Montreal and Quebec numberednine thousand men, besides Indians, commanded, too, by so great ageneral as Montcalm. Still all of these expeditions were successful. Quebec and Niagara were taken, and Crown Point and Ticonderoga wereabandoned. 

The most difficult part of the enterprise was the capture of Quebec, which was one of the most brilliant military exploits ever performed, and which raised the English general to the very summit of militaryfame. He was disappointed in the expected coöperation of GeneralAmherst, and he had to take one of the strongest fortresses in theworld, defended by troops superior in number to his own. He succeededin climbing the almost perpendicular rock on which the fortress wasbuilt, and in overcoming a superior force. Wolfe died in the attack, but lived long enough to hear of the flight of the enemy. Nothingcould exceed the tumultuous joy in England with which the news of thefall of Quebec was received; nothing could surpass the interest withwhich the distant expedition was viewed; and the depression of theFrench was equal to the enthusiasm of the English. Wolfe gained animmortal name, and a monument was erected to him in Westminster Abbey. But Pitt reaped the solid and substantial advantages which resultedfrom the conquest of Canada, which soon followed the reduction ofQuebec. He became the nation's idol, and was left to prosecute thevarious wars in which England was engaged, in his own way. 

[Sidenote: Victories of Clive in India. ]

While the English armies, under the direction of Pitt, were wrestingfrom the French nearly all their possessions in America, Clive wasadding a new empire to the vast dominions of Great Britain. India wasconquered, and the British power firmly planted in the East. Moreover, the English allies on the continent--the Prussians--obtained greatvictories, which will be alluded to in the chapter on Frederic theGreat. On all sides the English were triumphant, and were intoxicatedwith joy. The stocks rose, and the bells rang almost an incessant pealfor victories. 

In the midst of these public rejoicings, King George II. Died. He wasa sovereign who never secured the affections of the nation, whoseinterests he sacrificed to those of his German electorate, "He hadneither the qualities which make libertinism attractive nor thequalities which make dulness respectable. He had been a bad son, andhe made a worse father. Not one magnanimous action is recorded of him, but many meannesses. But his judgment was sound, his habitseconomical, and his spirit bold. These qualities prevented him frombeing despised, if they did not make him honored. "

His grandson, George III. , entered upon his long reign, October, 1760, in the twenty-third year of his age, and was universally admitted tobe the most powerful monarch in Christendom--or, rather, the monarchof the most powerful kingdom. He, or, rather, his ministers, resolvedto prosecute the war with vigor, and parliament voted liberalsupplies. The object of Pitt was the humiliation of both France andAustria, and also the protection of Prussia, struggling against almostoverwhelming forces. He secured his object by administering to thenation those draughts of flattery and military glory which intoxicatedthe people. 

[Sidenote: Resignation of Pitt. ]

However sincere the motives and brilliant the genius of the minister, it was impossible that a practical nation should not awake from thedelusion, which he so powerfully contributed to produce. People atlast inquired "why England was to become a party in a dispute betweentwo German powers, and why were the best English regiments fighting onthe Maine?" What was it to the busy shopkeeper of London that theTower guns were discharged, and the streets illuminated, if he were tobe additionally taxed? Statesmen began to calculate the enormous sumswhich had been wasted in an expensive war, where nothing had beengained but glory. Besides, jealousies and enmities sprung up againstPitt. Some were offended by his haughtiness, and others were estrangedby his withering invective. And his enemies were numerous andpowerful. Even the cabinet ministers, who were his friends, turnedagainst him. He wished to declare war against Spain, while the nationwas bleeding at every pore. But the cabinet could not be persuaded ofthe necessity of the war, and Pitt, of course, resigned. But it wasinevitable, and took place under his successor. Pitt left the helm ofstate with honor. He received a pension of three thousand pounds ayear, and his wife was made a baroness. 

The Earl of Bute succeeded him as premier, and was the first Toryminister since the accession of the house of Hanover. His watchwordwas _prerogative_. The sovereign should no longer be a gilded puppet, but a real king--an impossible thing in England. But his schemespleased the king, and Oxford University, and Dr. Johnson; while hisadministration was assailed with a host of libels from Wilkes, Churchill, and other kindred firebrands. 

His main act was the peace he secured to Europe. The Whigs railed atit then, and rail at it now; and Macaulay falls in with thelamentation of his party, and regrets that no better terms should havebeen made. But what can satisfy the ambition of England? The peace ofParis, in 1763, stipulated that Canada, with the Island of St. John, and Cape Breton, and all that part of Louisiana which lies east of theMississippi, except New Orleans, should be ceded to Great Britain, andthat the fortifications of Dunkirk should be destroyed; that Spainshould relinquish her claim to fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, should permit the English to cut mahogany on the shores of HondurasBay, and cede Florida and Minorca to Great Britain. In return forthese things, the French were permitted to fish on the Banks ofNewfoundland, and the Islands of Martinique, Guadaloupe, Belleisle, and St. Lucia were restored to them, and Cuba was restored to Spain. 

[Sidenote: Peace of Paris. ]

The peace of Paris, in 1763, constitutes an epoch; and we hence turnto survey the condition of France since the death of Louis XIV. , andalso other continental powers. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Archdeacon Coxe's History of the Pelham Administration. Thackeray's Life of Lord Chatham. Macaulay's Essay on Chatham. Horace Walpole's Reminiscences. Smyth's Lectures on Modern History. Jesse's Memoirs of the Pretenders. Graham's History of the United States, an exceedingly valuable work, but not sufficiently known. Lord Mahon's, Smollett's, Tyndal's, and Belsham's, are the standard histories of England, at this period; also, the continuation of Mackintosh, and the Pictorial History, are valuable. See also the Marchmont Papers, Ray's History of the Rebellion, Horace Walpole's Memoirs of George II. , Lord Waldegrave's Memoirs, and Doddington's Diary. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

LOUIS XV. 

The reign of Louis XV. Was one of the longest on record extending from1715 to 1774--the greater part of the eighteenth century. But he was achild, only five years of age, on the death of his great grandfather, Louis XIV. ; and, even after he came to his majority, he was ruled byhis ministers and his mistresses. He was not, like Louis XIV. , thelife and the centre of all great movements in his country. He was anautomaton, a pageant; not because the constitution imposed checks onhis power, but because he was weak and vacillating. He, therefore, performing no great part in history, is only to be alluded to, andattention should be mainly directed to his ministers. 

[Sidenote: Regency of the Duke of Orleans. ]

During the minority of the king, the reins of government were held bythe Duke of Orleans, as regent, and who, in case of the king's death, would be the next king, being grand-nephew of Louis XIV. Theadministration of the Duke of Orleans is nearly contemporaneous withthat of Sir Robert Walpole. The most pressing subject which demandedthe attention of the regent, was that of the finances. The late kinghad left a debt of one thousand millions of livres--an enormous sum inthat age. To get rid of this burden, the Duke of St. Simon proposed abankruptcy. "This, " said he, "would fall chiefly on the commercial andmoneyed classes, who were not to be feared or pitied; and would, moreover, be not only a relief to the state, but a salutary warning tothe ignoble classes not to lend their money. " This speech illustratesthe feelings and opinions of the aristocratic class in France, at thattime. But the minister of finance would not run the risk of incurringthe popular odium which such a measure would have produced, and heproposed calling together the States General. The regent duke, however, would not hear of that measure, and yet did not feel inclinedto follow fully the advice of St. Simon. He therefore compromised thematter, and resolved to rob the national creditor. He established acommission to verify the bills of the public creditors, and, if theiraccounts did not prove satisfactory, to cancel them entirely. Threehundred and fifty millions of livres--equal, probably, to threehundred millions of dollars in this age--were thus swept away. But itwas resolved not only to refuse to pay just debts, but to make peoplerepay the gains which they had made. Those who had loaned money to thestate, or had farmed the revenues, were flung into prison, andthreatened with confiscation of their goods, and even death, --treatedas Jews were treated in the Dark Ages, --unless they redeemedthemselves by purchasing a pardon. Never before did men suffer such apenalty for having befriended an embarrassed state. To this injusticeand cruelty the magistracy winked. But, in addition to this, the coinwas debased to such an extent, that seventy-two millions of livreswere thus added to the treasury. Yet even these gains were not enoughto satisfy a profligate government. There still continued a constantpressure. The national debt had increased even to fifteen hundredmillions of livres, or almost seventy millions sterling--equivalent towhat would now be equal to at least one thousand millions of dollars. 

[Sidenote: John Law. ]

To get rid of this debt, the regent listened to the schemes of thecelebrated John Law, a Scotch adventurer and financier, who hadestablished a bank, had grown rich, and was reputed to be a wonderfulpolitical economist. 

Law proposed, in substance, to increase the paper currency of thecountry, and thus supersede the necessity for the use of the preciousmetals. 

The regent, moreover, having great faith in Law's abilities, and inhis wealth, converted his private bank into a royal one--made it, inshort, the Bank of France. This bank was then allied with the twogreat commercial companies of the time--the East India and theMississippi. Great privileges were bestowed on each. The latter hadthe exclusive monopoly of the trade with Louisiana, and all thecountries on the Mississippi River, and also of the fur trade inCanada. Louisiana was then supposed to be rich in gold mines, andgreat delusions arose from the popular notion. 

[Sidenote: Mississippi Company. ]

The capital of this gigantic corporation was fixed at one hundredmillions and Law, who was made director-general, aimed to make thenotes of the company preferable to specie, which, however couldlawfully be demanded for the notes. So it was settled that the sharesof the company could only be purchased by the paper of the bank. Asextravagant hopes of gain were cherished respecting the company, itsshares were in great demand. And, as only Law's bank bills couldpurchase the shares, the gold and silver of the realm flowed intoLaw's bank. Law and the regent had, therefore, the fabrication of bothshares and bank bills to an indefinite amount. 

The national creditor was also paid in the notes of the bank, and, asunbounded confidence existed, both in the genius of Law and in theprofits of the Mississippi Company, --as the shares were constantly indemand, and were rising in value, --the creditor was satisfied. In ashort time, one half of the national debt was transferred. Governmentowed the bank, and not the individuals and corporations from whomloans had been originally obtained. These individuals, instead ofgovernment scrip, had shares in the Mississippi Company. 

And all would have been well, had the company's shares been valuable, or had they retained their credit, or even had but a small part of thenational debt been transferred. But the people did not know the realissues of the bank, and so long as new shares could be created andsold to pay the interest, the company's credit was good. For a whilethe delusion lasted. Law was regarded as a great national benefactor. His house was thronged with dukes and princes. He becamecontroller-general of the finances--virtually prime minister. His fameextended far and wide. Honors were showered upon him from everyquarter. He was elected a member of the French Academy. His schemesseemed to rain upon Paris a golden shower. He had freed the state fromembarrassments, and he had, apparently, made every body rich, and noone poor. He was a deity, as beneficent as he was powerful. He becamehimself the richest man in Europe. Every body was intoxicated. Thegolden age had come. Paris was crowded with strangers from all partsof the world. Five hundred thousand strangers expended their fortunes, in hope of making greater ones. Twelve hundred new coaches were set upin the city. Lodgings could scarcely be had for money. The highestprice was paid for provisions. Widow ladies, clergymen, and noblemendeserted London to speculate in stocks at Paris. Nothing was seen butnew equipages, new houses, new apparel, new furniture. Nothing wasfelt but universal exhilaration. Every man seemed to have made hisfortune. The stocks rose every day. The higher they rose, the more newstock was created. At last, the shares of the company rose from onehundred to twelve hundred per cent. , and three hundred millions werecreated, which were nominally worth, in 1719, three thousand sixhundred millions of livres--one hundred and eighty times the amount ofall the gold and silver in Europe at that time. 

[Sidenote: Popular Delusion. ]

In this public delusion, the directors were wise enough to convert_their_ shares into silver and gold. A great part of the current coinin the kingdom was locked up in the houses or banks of a fewstockjobbers and speculators. 

But the scarcity of gold and silver was felt, people's eyes wereopened, and the bubble burst, but not until half of the national debthad been paid off by this swindling transaction. 

The nation was furious. A panic spread among all classes; the bank hadno money with which to redeem its notes; the shares fell almost tonothing; and universal bankruptcy took place. Those who, a few daysbefore, fancied themselves rich, now found themselves poor. Propertyof all kinds fell to less than its original value. Houses, horses, carriages, upholstery, every thing, declined in price. All weresellers, and few were purchasers. 

But popular execration and vengeance pursued the financier who haddeceived the nation. He was forced to fly from Paris. His wholeproperty was confiscated, and he was reduced to indigence andcontempt. When his scheme was first suggested to the regent, he wasworth three millions of livres. He had better remained a privatebanker. 

The bursting of the Mississippi bubble, of course, inflamed the nationagainst the government, and the Duke of Orleans was execrated, for hisagency in the business had all the appearance of a fraud. But he wasprobably deluded with others, and hoped to free the country from itsburdens. The great blunder was in the over-issue of notes when therewas no money to redeem them. 

Nor could any management have prevented the catastrophe. 

[Sidenote: Fatal Effects of the Delusion. ]

It was not possible that the shares of the company should advance sogreatly, and the public not perceive that they had advanced beyondtheir value; it was not possible, that, while paper money so vastlyincreased in quantity, the numerical prices of all other things shouldnot increase also, and that foreigners who sold their manufactures tothe French should not turn their paper into gold, and carry it out ofthe kingdom; it was not possible that the disappearance of the coinshould not create alarm, notwithstanding the edicts of the regent, andthe reasonings of Law; it was not possible that annuitants should notdiscover that their old incomes were now insufficient and lessvaluable, as the medium in which they were paid was less valuable; itwas not possible that the small part of society which may be calledthe sober and reasoning part, should not be so struck with the suddenfortunes and extravagant enthusiasm which prevailed, as not to doubtof the solidity of a system, unphilosophical in itself, and which, after all, had to depend on the profits of a commercial company, thegood faith of the regent, and the skill of Law; it was impossible, onthese and other accounts, but that gold and silver should be at lastpreferred to paper notes, of whatever description or promise. Thesewere inevitable consequences. Hence the failure of the scheme of Law, and the ruin of all who embarked in it, owing to a change in publicopinion as to the probable success of the scheme, and, secondly, theover-issue of money. 

By this great folly, four hundred thousand families were ruined, orgreatly reduced; but the government got rid of about eight hundredmillions of debts. The sufferings of the people, with such agovernment, did not, however, create great solicitude; the same oldcourse of folly and extravagance was pursued by the court. 

Nor was there a change for the better when Louis XV. Attained hismajority. His vices and follies exceeded all that had ever beendisplayed before. The support of his mistresses alone was enough toembarrass the nation. Their waste and extravagance almost exceededbelief. Who has not heard of the disgraceful and disgusting iniquitiesof Pompadour and Du Barry?

The regency of the Duke of Orleans occupied the first eight years ofthe reign of Louis XV. The prime minister of the regent was Dubois, atfirst his tutor, and afterwards Archbishop of Cambray. He was rewardedwith a cardinal's hat for the service he rendered to the Jesuits intheir quarrel with the Jansenists, but was a man of unprincipledcharacter; a fit minister to a prince who pretended to be toointellectual to worship God, and who copied Henry IV. Only in hislicentiousness. 

The first minister of Louis XV. , after he assumed himself the reins ofgovernment, was the Duke of Bourbon, lineal heir of the house ofCondé, and first prince of the blood. But he was a man of nocharacter, and his short administration was signalized by no importantevent. 

[Sidenote: Administration of Cardinal Fleury. ]

Cardinal Fleury succeeded the Duke of Bourbon as prime minister. Hehad been preceptor of the king, and was superior to all the intriguesof the court; a man of great timidity, but also a man of greatprobity, gentleness, and benignity. Fortunately, he was intrusted withpower at a period of great domestic tranquillity, and hisadministration was, like that of Walpole, pacific. He projected, however, no schemes of useful reform, and made no improvements in lawsor finance. But he ruled despotically, and with good intentions, from1726 to 1743. 

The most considerable subject of interest connected with his peacefuladministration, was the quarrel between the Jesuits and theJansenists. Fleury took the side of the former, although he was neveran active partisan; and he was induced to support the Jesuits for thesake of securing the cardinal's hat--the highest honor, next to thatof the tiara, which could be conferred on an ecclesiastic. The Jesuitsupheld the crumbling power of the popes, and the popes rewarded theadvocates of that body of men, who were their ablest supporters. 

The Jansenist controversy is too important to be passed over with amere allusion. It was the great event in the history of CatholicEurope during the seventeenth century. It involved principles of greattheological, and even political interest. 

[Sidenote: Cornelius Jansen. ]

The Jansenist controversy grew out of the long-disputed questionspertaining to grace and free will--questions which were agitated withgreat spirit and acrimony in the seventeenth century as they hadpreviously been centuries before by Augustine and Pelagius. TheJesuits had never agreed with the great oracle of the Western churchin his views on certain points, and it was their aim to show theabsolute freedom of the human will--that it had a self-determiningpower, a perfect liberty to act or not to act. Molina, a SpanishJesuit, had been a great defender of this ancient Pelagianism, and hisviews were opposed by the Dominicans, and the controversy was carriedinto all the universities of Europe. The Council of Trent was too wiseto meddle with this difficult question; but angry theologians wouldnot let it rest, and it was discussed with peculiar fervor in theCatholic University of Louvaine. Among the doctors who theredistinguished themselves in reviving the great contest of the fifthand sixth centuries, were Cornelius Jansen of Holland, and Jean deVerger of Gascony. Both these doctors hated the Jesuits, and lamentedthe dangerous doctrines which they defended, and advocated the viewsof Augustine and the Calvinists. Jansen became professor of divinityin the university, and then Bishop of Ypres. After an uninterruptedstudy of twenty years, he produced his celebrated book called_Augustinus_, in which he set forth the servitude of the will, and thenecessity of divine grace to break the bondage, which, however, hemaintained, like Calvin, is imparted only to a few, and in pursuanceof a decree existing in the divine mind before the creation of ourspecies. But Jansen died before the book was finished, and two yearselapsed before it was published, but, when published, it was thesignal for a contest which distracted Europe for seventy years. 

[Sidenote: St. Cyran--Arnauld--Le Maitre. ]

While Jansen was preparing this work, his early companion and friend, De Verger, a man of family and rank, had become abbot of the monasteryof St. Cyran in Paris, and had formed, in the centre of that gay city, a learned and ascetic hermitage. This was during the reign ofLouis XIII. His reputation, as a scholar and a saint, attracted theattention of Richelieu, and his services were solicited by that ableminister. But neither rewards, nor flatteries, nor applause had powerover the mind of St. Cyran, as he was now called. The cardinal hatedand feared a man whom he could not bribe or win, and soon found meansto quarrel with him, and sent him to the gloomy fortress of Vincennes. But there, in his prison, he devoted himself, with renewed ardor, tohis studies and duties, subduing his appetites and passions by anasceticism which even his church did not require, and devoting all histhoughts and words to the service of God. Like Calvin and Augustine, he had so profound a conception of the necessity of an inward change, that he made grace precede repentance. A man so serene in trial, sohumble in spirit, so natural and childlike in ordinary life, and yetso distinguished for talents and erudition, could not help excitingadmiration, and making illustrious proselytes. Among them was ArnauldD'Antilly, the intimate friend of Richelieu and Anne of Austria; LeMaitre, the most eloquent lawyer and advocate in France; and AngeliqueArnauld, the abbess of Port Royal. This last was one of the mostdistinguished ladies of her age, noble by birth, and still more nobleby her beautiful qualities of mind and heart. She had been made abbessof her Cistercian convent at the age of eleven years, and at that timewas gay, social, and light-hearted. The preaching of a Capuchin friarhad turned her thoughts to the future world, and she closed the gatesof her beautiful abbey, in the vale of Chevreuse, against allstrangers, and devoted herself to the ascetic duties which her churchand age accounted most meritorious. She soon after made theacquaintance of St. Cyran, and he imbued her mind with the principlesof the Augustinian theology. When imprisoned at Vincennes, he wasstill the spiritual father of Port Royal. Amid this famous retreatwere collected the greatest scholars and the greatest saints of theseventeenth century--Antoine Le Maitre, De Lericourt, Le Maitre deSaci, Antoine Arnauld, and Pascal himself. Le Maitre de Saci gave tothe world the best translation of the Bible in French; Arnauld wroteone hundred volumes of controversy, and, among them, a noted satire onthe Jesuits, which did them infinite harm; while Pascal, besides hiswonderful mathematical attainments, and his various meditative works, is immortalized for his Provincial Letters, written in the purestFrench, and with matchless power and beauty. This work, directedagainst the Jesuits, is an inimitable model of elegant irony, and themost effective sarcasm probably ever elaborated by man. In the vale ofPort Royal also dwelt Tillemont, the great ecclesiastical historian;Fontaine and Racine, who were controlled by the spirit of Arnauld, aswell as the Prince of Conti, and the Duke of Liancourt. There resided, under the name of _Le Merrier_, and in the humble occupation of agardener, one of the proudest nobles of the French court; and there, too, dwelt the celebrated Duchess of Longueville, sister of the Princeof Condé, the life of the Fronde, the idol of the Parisian mob, and theonce gay patroness of the proudest festivities. 

[Sidenote: The Labors of the Port Royalists. ]

But it is the labors of these saints, scholars, and nobles to repressthe dangerous influence of the Jesuits for which they were mostdistinguished. The Jansenists of Port Royal did not deny the authorityof the pope, nor the great institutions of the papacy. They soughtchiefly, in their controversy with the Jesuits, to enforce thedoctrines of Augustine respecting justification. But their effortswere not agreeable to the popes, nor to the doctors of the Sorbonne, who had no sympathy with their religious life, and detested their boldspirit of inquiry. The doctors of the Sorbonne, accordingly, extractedfrom the book of Jansen five propositions which they deemed heretical, and urged the pope to condemn them. The Port Royalists admitted thatthese five propositions were indefensible if they were declaredheretical by the sovereign pontiff, but denied that they were actuallyto be found in the book of Jansen. They did not quarrel with the popeon grounds of faith. They recognized his infallibility in matters ofreligion, but not in matters of fact. The pope, not wishing to pushthings to extremity, which never was the policy of Rome, pretended tobe satisfied. But the Jesuits would not let him rest, and insisted onthe condemnation of the Jansenist opinions. The case was broughtbefore a great council of French bishops and doctors, and Arnauld, thegreat champion of the Jansenists, was voted guilty of heresy fordenying that the five propositions which the pope condemned wereactually in the book of Jansen. The pope, moreover, was induced toissue a formula of an oath, to which all who wished to enjoy anyoffice in the church were obliged to subscribe, and which affirmedthat the five condemned propositions were actually to be found inJansen's book. This act of the pope was justly regarded by theJansenists as intolerably despotic, and many of the most respectableof the French clergy sided with them in opinion. All France now becameinterested in the controversy, and it soon led to great commotions. The Jansenists then contended that the pope might err in questions offact, and that, therefore, they were not under an obligation tosubscribe to the required oath. The Jesuits, on the other hand, maintained the pope's infallibility in matters of fact, as well as indoctrine; and, as they had the most powerful adherents, the Jansenistswere bitterly persecuted. But, as twenty-two bishops were found totake their side, the matter was hushed up for a while. For ten yearsmore, the Port Royalists had peace and protection, chiefly through thegreat influence of the Duchess of Longueville; but, on her death, persecution returned. Arnauld was obliged to fly to the Netherlands, and the beautiful abbey of Port Royal was despoiled of its lands andprivileges. Louis XIV. Had ever hated its inmates, being ruled byMadame de Maintenon, who, in turn, was a tool of the Jesuits. 

But the demolition of the abbey, the spoliation of its lands, and thedispersion of those who sought its retreat, did not stop thecontroversy. Pascal continued it, and wrote his Provincial Letters, which had a wonderful effect in making the Jesuits both ridiculous andhateful. That book was the severest blow this body of ambitious andartful casuists ever received. 

[Sidenote: Principles of Jansenism. ]

Nor was the Jansenist controversy merely a discussion of grace andfree will. The principles of Jansenism, when carried out, tended tosecure independence to the national church, and to free theconsciences of men from the horrible power of their spiritualconfessors. Jansenism was a timid protest against spiritual tyranny, amild kind of Puritanism, which found sympathy with many people inFrance. The Parliament of Paris caught the spirit of freedom, andprotected the Jansenists and those who sympathized with them. It sohappened that a certain bishop published a charge to his clergy whichwas strongly imbued with the independent doctrines of the Jansenists. He was tried and condemned by a provincial council, and banished bythe government. The Parliament of Paris, as the guardian of the law, took up the quarrel, and Cardinal Fleury was obliged to resort to a_Bed of Justice_ in order to secure the registry of a decree. A Bed ofJustice was the personal appearance of the sovereign in the supremejudicial tribunal of the nation, and his command to the members of itto obey his injunctions was the last resort of absolute power. Theparliament, of course, obeyed, but protested the next day, and drew upresolutions which declared the temporal power to be independent of thespiritual. It then proceeded to Meudon, one of the royal palaces, tolay its remonstrance before the king; and Louis XV. , indignant andastonished, refused to see the members. The original controversy wasforgotten, and the cause of the parliament, which was the cause ofliberty, became the cause of the nation. The resistance of theparliament was technically unsuccessful, yet, nevertheless, sowed theseeds of popular discontent, and contributed to that greatinsurrection which finally overturned the throne. 

[Sidenote: Functions of the Parliament. ]

[Sidenote: The Bull Unigenitus. ]

It may be asked how the Parliament of Paris became a judicialtribunal, rather than a legislative assembly, as in England. When theJustinian code was introduced into French jurisprudence, in the latterpart of the Middle Ages, the old feudal and clerical judges--thebarons and bishops--were incapable of expounding it, and a new classof men arose--the lawyers, whose exclusive business it was to studythe laws. Being best acquainted with them, they entered upon thefunctions of judges, and the secular and clerical lords yielded totheir opinions. The great barons, however, still continued to sit inthe judicial tribunals, although ignorant of the new jurisprudence;and their decisions were directed by the opinions of the lawyers whohad obtained a seat in their body, as is the case at present in theEnglish House of Lords when it sits as a judicial body. The necessityof providing some permanent repository for the royal edicts, inducedthe kings of France to enroll them in the journals of the courts ofparliament, being the highest judicial tribunal; and the members ofthese courts gradually availed themselves of this custom to disputethe legality of any edict which had not been thus registered. As theinfluence of the States General declined, the power of the parliamentincreased. The encroachments of the papacy first engaged itsattention, and then the management of the finances by the ministers ofFrancis I. Called forth remonstrances. During the war of the Fronde, the parliament absolutely refused to register the royal decrees. ButLouis XIV. Was sufficiently powerful to suppress the spirit ofindependence, and accordingly entered the court, during the firstyears of his reign, with a whip in his hand, and compelled it toregister his edicts. Nor did any murmur afterwards escape the body, until, at the close of his reign the members opposed the bull_Unigenitus_--that which condemned the Jansenists--as an infringementof the liberties of the Gallican Church. And no sooner had the greatmonarch died, than, contrary to his will, they vested the regency inthe hands of the Duke of Orleans. Then freedom of expostulationrespecting the ruinous schemes of Law induced him to banish them, andthey only obtained their recall by degrading concessions. Their nextopposition was during the administration of Fleury. The minister offinance made an attempt to inquire into the wealth of the clergy, which raised the jealousy of the order; and the clergy, in order todivert the attention of the court, revived the opposition of theparliament to the bull _Unigenitus_. It was resolved by the clergy todemand confessional notes from dying persons, and that these notesshould be signed by priests adhering to the bull, before extremeunction should be given. The Archbishop of Paris, at the head of theFrench clergy, was opposed by the parliament, and this high judicialcourt imprisoned such of the clergy as refused to administer thesacraments. The king, under the guidance of Fleury, forbade theparliament to take cognizance of ecclesiastical proceedings, and tosuspend its prosecutions. Instead of acquiescing, the parliamentpresented new remonstrances, and the members refused to attend to anyother functions, and resolved that they could not obey this injunctionwithout violating their consciences. They cited the Bishop of Orleansbefore their tribunal, and ordered all his writings, which denied thejurisdiction of the court, to be publicly burnt by the executioner. Byaid of the military, the parliament enforced the administration of thesacraments, and became so interested in the controversy as to neglectother official duties. The king, indignant, again banished themembers, with the exception of four, whom he imprisoned. And, in ordernot to impede the administration of justice, the king establishedanother tribunal for the prosecution of civil suits. But the lawyers, sympathizing with the parliament, refused to plead before the newcourt. This resolute conduct, and other evils happening at the time, induced the king to yield, in order to conciliate the people, and theparliament was recalled. This was a popular triumph, and thearchbishop was banished in his turn. Shortly after, Cardinal Fleurydied, and a new policy was adopted. The quarrel of the parliament andthe clergy was forgotten in a still greater quarrel between the kingand the Jesuits. 

The policy of Fleury, like that of Walpole, was pacific; and yet, likehim, he was forced into a war against his own convictions. And successattended the arms of France, in the colonial struggle with England, until Pitt took the helm of state. 

Until the death of Fleury, in 1743, who administered affairs withwisdom, moderation, and incorruptible integrity, he was beloved, if hewas not venerated. But after this event, a great change took place inhis character and measures, and the reign of mistresses commenced, andto an extent unparalleled in the history of Europe. Louis XIV. Bestowed the revenue of the state on unworthy favorites, yet neverallowed them to govern the nation; but Louis XV. Intrusted the mostimportant state matters to their direction, and the profoundest statesecrets to their keeping. 

[Sidenote: Madame de Pompadour. ]

Among these mistresses, Madame de Pompadour was the most noted; awoman of talent, but abominably unprincipled. Ambition was hermaster-passion, and her _boudoir_ was the council chamber of the royalministers. Most of the great men of France paid court to her, and toneglect her was social ruin. Even Voltaire praised her beauty, andMontesquieu flattered her intellect. And her extravagance was equal toher audacity. She insisted on drawing bills on the treasury withoutspecifying the service. The comptroller-general was in despair, andthe state was involved in inextricable embarrassments. 

It was through her influence that the Duke de Choiseul was made thesuccessor of Fleury. He was not deficient in talent, but hisadministration proved unfortunate. Under his rule, Louis lost theCanadas, and France plunged into a contest with Frederic the Great. The Seven Years' War, which occurred during his administration, hadmade the age an epoch; but as this is to be considered in the chapteron Frederic III. , no notice of it will be taken in this connection. 

The most memorable event which arose out of the policy and conduct ofChoiseul was the fall of the Jesuits. 

[Sidenote: The Jesuits. ]

Their arts and influence had obtained from the pope the bull_Unigenitus_, designed to suppress their enemies, the Jansenists; andthe king, governed by Fleury, had taken their side. 

But they were so unwise as to quarrel with the powerful mistress ofLouis XV. They despised her, and defied her hatred. Indeed, theJesuits had climbed to so great a height that they were scornful ofpopular clamor, and even of regal distrust. But there is no man, andno body of men, who can venture to provoke enmity with impunity; anddestruction often comes from a source the least suspected, andapparently the least to be feared. Who could have supposed that theruin of this powerful body, which had reigned so proudly inChristendom for a century; which had imposed its Briareus's arms onthe necks of princes; which had its confessors in the courts of themost absolute monarchs; which, with its hundred eyes, had penetratedthe secrets of all the cabinets of Europe; and which had succeeded insuppressing in so many places every insurrection of humanintelligence, in spite of the fears of kings, the jealousy of theother monastic orders, and the inveterate animosity of philosophersand statesmen, --would receive a fatal wound from the hands of a woman, who scandalized by her vices even the depraved court of an enervatedprince? But so it was. Madame de Pompadour hated the Jesuits becausethey attempted to undermine her influence with the king. And sheincited the prime minister, whom she had raised by her arts to power, to unite with Pombal in Portugal, in order to effect their ruin. 

[Sidenote: Exposure of the Jesuits. ]

In no country was the power of the Jesuits more irresistible than inPortugal. There their ascendency was complete. But the prime ministerof Joseph I. , the Marquis of Pombal, a man of great energy, had beeninsulted by a lady of the highest rank, and he swore revenge. Anopportunity was soon afforded. The king happened to be fired at andwounded in his palace by some unknown enemy. The blow was aimed at theobjects of the minister's vengeance--the Marchioness of Tavora, herhusband, her family, and her friends the Jesuits. And royal vengeancefollowed, not merely on an illustrious family, but on those personswhom this family befriended. The Jesuits were expelled in the mostsummary manner from the kingdom. The Duke de Choiseul and MadamePompadour hailed their misfortunes with delight, and watched theiropportunity for revenge. This was afforded by the failure of LaValette, the head of the Jesuits at Martinique. It must be borne inmind that the Jesuits had embarked in commercial enterprises, whilethey were officiating as missionaries. La Valette aimed to monopolize, for his order, the trade with the West Indies, which commercialambition excited the jealousy of mercantile classes in France, andthey threw difficulties in his way. And it so happened that some ofhis most valuable ships were taken and plundered by the Englishcruisers, which calamity, happening at a time of embarrassment, causedhis bills to be protested, and his bankers to stop payment. They, indignant, accused the Jesuits, as a body, of peculation and fraud, and demanded repayment from the order. Had the Jesuits been wise, theywould have satisfied the ruined bankers. But who is wise on the brinkof destruction? _"Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat. "_ TheJesuits refused to sacrifice La Valette to the interests of theirorder, which course would have been in accordance with their generalpolicy. The matter was carried before the Parliament of Paris, and thewhole nation was interested in its result. It was decided by thissupreme judicial tribunal, that the Jesuits were responsible for thedebts of La Valette. But the commercial injury was weak in comparisonwith the moral. In the course of legal proceedings, the books and ruleof the Jesuits were demanded--that mysterious rule which had neverbeen exposed to the public eye, and which had been so carefullyguarded. When this rule was produced, all minor questions vanished;mistresses, bankruptcies, politics, finances, wars, --all becameinsignificant, compared with those questions which affected theposition and welfare of the society. Pascal became a popular idol, and"Tartuffe grew pale before Escobar. " The reports of the trial lay onevery toilet table, and persons of both sexes, and of all ages andconditions, read with avidity the writings of the casuists. Nothingwas talked about but "probability, " "surrender of conscience, " and"mental reservations. " Philosophers grew jealous of the absorbinginterest with which every thing pertaining to the _régime_ of theJesuits was read, and of the growing popularity of the Jansenists, whohad exposed it. "What, " said Voltaire, "will it profit us to bedelivered from the foxes, if we are to be given up to the wolves?" Butthe philosopher had been among the first to raise the cry of alarmagainst the Jesuits, and it was no easy thing to allay the storm. 

[Sidenote: Their Expulsion from France. ]

The Jesuits, in their distress, had only one friend sufficientlypowerful to protect them, and he was the king. He had been their bestfriend, and he still wished to come to their rescue. He had beentaught to honor them, and he had learned to fear them. He stood infear of assassination, and dreaded a rupture with so powerful andunscrupulous a body. And his resistance to the prosecution would havebeen insurmountable, had it not been for the capriciousness of histemper, which more than balanced his superstitious fears. His ministerand his mistress circumvented him. They represented that, as theparliament and the nation were both aroused against the Jesuits, hisresistance would necessarily provoke a new Fronde. Nothing he dreadedso much as civil war. The wavering monarch, placed in the painfulnecessity of choosing, as he supposed, between a war and the ruin ofhis best friends, yielded to the solicitations of his artful advisers. But he yielded with a moderation which did him honor. He would notconsent to the expulsion of the Jesuits until efforts had been made tosecure their reform. He accordingly caused letters to be written toRome, demanding an immediate attention to the subject. Choiseulhimself prepared the scheme of reformation. But the Jesuits would nothear of any retrenchment of their power or privileges. "Let us remainas we are, or let us exist no longer, " was their reply. Theparliament, the people, the minister, and the mistress renewed theirclamors. The parliament decreed that the constitution of the societywas an encroachment on the royal authority, and the king was obligedto yield. The members of the society were forbidden to wear the habitof the society, or to enjoy any clerical office or dignity. Theircolleges were closed, their order was dissolved, and they wereexpelled from the kingdom with rigor and severity, in spite of thewishes of the king and many entreaties and tears from the zealousadvocates of Catholicism, and even of religious education. 

[Sidenote: Suppression in Spain. ]

But the Jesuits were too powerful, even in their misfortunes, to bepersecuted without the effort to annihilate them. Having secured theirexpulsion from France and Portugal, Choiseul and Pombal turned theirattention to Spain, and so successfully intrigued, so artfully wroughton the jealousy and fears of Charles III. , that this weak princefollowed the example of Joseph I. And Louis XV. But the king and hisminister D'Aranda, however, prosecuted their investigations with theutmost secrecy--did not even tell their allies of their movements. Ofcourse, the Jesuits feared nothing from the king of Spain. But whenhis measures were completed, an edict was suddenly declared, decreeingthe suppression of the order in the land of Inquisitions. The decreecame like a thunderbolt, but was instantly executed. "On the same day, 2d April, 1767, and at the same hour, in Spain, in Africa, in Asia, inAmerica, and in all the islands belonging to the Spanish monarchy, thealcaldes of the towns opened their despatches from Madrid, by whichthey were ordered, on pain of the severest penalties, immediately toenter the establishments of the Jesuits, to seize their persons, expelthem from their convents, and transport them, within twenty-fourhours, to such places as were designated. Nor were the Jesuitspermitted to carry away their money or their papers. Only a purse, abreviary, and some apparel were given them. "

The government feared a popular insurrection from an excitement sosudden, and a persecution so dreadful, and therefore issued expressprohibition to all the ecclesiastical authorities to prevent anyallusion to the event from the pulpit. All classes were required tomaintain absolute silence, and any controversy, or criticism, orremark was regarded as high treason. Such is despotism. Such isreligious persecution, when fear, as well as hatred, prompts toinjustice and cruelty. 

The Jesuits, in their misfortunes, managed with consummate craft. Their policy was to appear in the light of victims of persecution. There was to them no medium between reigning as despots or dying asmartyrs. Mediocrity would have degraded them. Ricci, the general ofthe order, would not permit them to land in Italy, to which countrythey were sent by the king of Spain. Six thousand priests, in miseryand poverty, were sent adrift upon the Mediterranean, and after sixmonths of vicissitude, suffering, and despair, they found a miserablerefuge on the Island of Corsica. 

[Sidenote: Pope Clement XIV. ]

Soon after, the pope, their most powerful protector, died. Asuccessor was to be appointed. But France, Spain, and Portugal, benton the complete suppression of the Jesuits, resolved that no popeshould be elected who would not favor their end. A cardinal wasfound, --Ganganelli, --who promised the ambassadors that, if electedpope, he would abolish the order. They, accordingly, intrigued tosecure his election. The Jesuits, also, strained every nerve, and putforth marvellous talent and art, to secure a pope who would _protectthem_. But the ambassadors of the allied powers overreached even theJesuits. Ganganelli was the plainest, and, apparently, the mostunambitious of men. His father had been a peasant; but, by the forceof talent and learning, he had arisen, from the condition of hisfather, to be a Roman cardinal. Under the garb of a saint, he aspiredto the tiara. There was only one condition of success; and that was, to destroy the best supporters of that fearful absolutism which had solong enslaved the world. The sacrifice was tremendous; but it wasmade, and he became a pope. Then commenced in his soul the awfulstruggle. Should he fulfil his pledge, and jeopardize his cause andthrone, and be branded, by the zealots of his church, with eternalinfamy? or should he break his word, and array against himself, withawful enmity, the great monarchs of Europe, and perhaps lose theallegiance of their subjects to him as the supreme head of theCatholic Church? The decision was the hardest which mortal man hadever been required to make. Whatever course he pursued was full ofdanger and disgrace. Poor Ganganelli! he had better remained acowherd, a simple priest, a bishop, a cardinal, --any thing, --ratherthan to have been made a pope! But such was his ambition, and he wasobliged to reap its penalty. Long did the afflicted pontiff delay tofulfil his pledge; long did he practise all the arts of dissimulation, of which he was such a master. He delayed, he flattered, he entreated, he coaxed. But the monarchs called peremptorily for the fulfilment ofhis pledge, and all Europe now understood the nature of the contest. It was between the Jesuits and the monarchs of Europe. Ganganelli wascompelled to give his decision. His health declined, his spiritsforsook him, his natural gayety fled. He courted solitude, he wept, heprayed. But he must, nevertheless, decide. The Jesuits threatenedassassination, and exposed, with bitter eloquence, the ruin of hischurch, if he yielded her privileges to kings. And kings threatenedsecession from Rome, deposition--ten thousand calamities. His agonybecame insupportable; but delay was no longer possible. He decided tosuppress the order of the Jesuits; and sixty-nine colleges wereclosed, their missions were broken up, their churches were given totheir rivals, and twenty-two thousand priests were left withoutorganization, wealth, or power. 

[Sidenote: Death of Ganganelli. ]

Their revenge was not an idle threat. One day, the pope, on arisingfrom table, felt an internal shock, followed by great cold. Graduallyhe lost his voice and strength. His blood became corrupted; and hismoral system gave way with the physical. He knew that he wasdoomed--that he was poisoned--that he must die. The fear of hell wasnow added to his other torments. "_Compulsus, feci, compulsus, feci!_"--"O, mercy, mercy, I have been compelled!" he cried, anddied--died by that slow but sure poison, such as old Alexander VI. Knew so well how to administer to his victims when he sought theirwealth. Pope Clement XIV. Inflicted, it was supposed, a mortal woundupon his church and upon her best friends. He, indeed, reaped thepenalty of ambition; but the cause which he represented did notperish, nor will it lose vitality so long as the principle of evil onearth is destined to contend with the principle of good. On therestoration of the Bourbons, the order of the Jesuits was restored;and their flaming sword, with its double edge, was again felt in everycorner of the world. 

[Sidenote: Death of Louis XV. ]

The Jesuits, on their expulsion, found shelter in Prussia, andprotection from the royal infidel who had been the friend of Voltaire. A schism between the crowned heads of Europe and infidel philosophershad taken place. Frederic, who had sympathized with their bittermockery, at last perceived the tendency of their writings; that menwho assailed obedience to divine laws would not long respect theinstitutions and governments which mankind had recognized. Heperceived, too, the natural union of absolutism in the church withabsolutism in the state, and came to the rescue of the great, unchanged, unchangeable, and ever-consistent advocates of despotism. The frivolous Choiseul, the extravagant Pompadour, and the debauchedSardanapalus of his age, did not perceive the truth which the King ofPrussia recognized in his latter days. Nor would it have availed anything, if they had been gifted with the clear insight of Frederic theGreat. The stream, on whose curious banks the great and the noble ofFrance had been amusing themselves, soon swelled into an overwhelmingtorrent. That devastating torrent was the French Revolution, whoseawful swell was first perceived during the latter years of Louis XV. He himself caught glimpses of the future; but, with the egotism of aBourbon, he remarked "that the throne would last during his time. "Soon after this heartless speech was made, he was stricken with thesmall-pox, and died 1774, after a long and inglorious reign. He wasdeserted in his last hours, and his disgusting and loathsome remainswere huddled into their last abode by the workmen of his palace. 

Before the reign of Louis XVI. Can be described, it is necessary toglance at the career of Frederic the Great, and the condition of thevarious European states, at a period contemporary with the SevenYears' War--the great war of the eighteenth century, before thebreaking out of the French Revolution. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --For a general view of the reign of Louis XV. , see the histories of Lacretelle, Voltaire, and Crowe. The scheme of Law is best explained in Smyth's Lectures, and Anderson's History of Commerce. The struggles between the king and the Parliament of Paris are tolerably described in the History of Adolphus. For a view of the Jansenist Controversy, see Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Ranke's History of the Popes, Pascal's Provincial Letters, and Stephens's article in the Edinburgh Review, on the Port Royalists. The fall of the Jesuits has been admirably treated by Quinet. James has written a good sketch of the lives of Fleury and Choiseul. For the manners of the court of Louis XV. , the numerous memoirs and letters, which were written during the period, must be consulted; the most amusing of which, and, in a certain sense, instructive, are too infamous to be named. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

FREDERIC THE GREAT. 

[Sidenote: Frederic William. ]

Frederic II. Of Prussia has won a name which will be immortal onMoloch's catalogue of military heroes. His singular character extortsour admiration, while it calls forth our aversion, admiration for hisgreat abilities, sagacity, and self-reliance, and disgust for hiscruelties, his malice, his suspicions, and his tricks. He had no faithin virtue or disinterestedness, and trusted only to mechanicalagencies--to the power of armies--to the principle of fear. He was notindifferent to literature, or the improvement of his nation; but warwas alike his absorbing passion and his highest glory. Peter the Greatwas half a barbarian, and Charles XII. Half a madman; but Frederic wasneither barbarous in his tastes, nor wild in his schemes. Louis XIV. Plunged his nation in war from puerile egotism, and William III. Fought for the great cause of religious and civil liberty; butFrederic, from the excitement which war produced, and the restlessambition of plundering what was not his own. 

He was born in the royal palace of Berlin, in 1712--ten years afterPrussia had become a kingdom, and in the lifetime of his grandfather, Frederic I. The fortunes of his family were made by hisgreat-grandfather, called the _Great Elector_, of the house ofHohenzollern. He could not make Brandenburg a fertile province; so heturned it into a military state. He was wise, benignant, anduniversally beloved. But few of his amiable qualities were inheritedby his great-grandson. Frederic II. Resembled more his whimsical andtyrannical father, Frederic William, who beat his children without acause, and sent his subjects to prison from mere caprice. When hisambassador, in London, was allowed only one thousand pounds a year, hegave a bounty of thirteen hundred pounds to a tall Irishman, to joinhis famous body-guard, a regiment of men who were each over six feethigh. He would kick women in the streets, abuse clergymen for lookingon the soldiers, and insult his son's tutor for teaching him Latin. But, abating his coarseness, his brutality, and his cruelty, he was aChristian, after a certain model. He had respect for the institutionsof religion, denounced all amusements as sinful, and read a sermonaloud, every afternoon, to his family. His son perceived hisinconsistencies, and grew up an infidel. There was no sympathy betweenfather and son, and the father even hated the heir of his house andthrone. The young prince was kept on bread and water; his mostmoderate wishes were disregarded; he was surrounded with spies; he wascruelly beaten and imprisoned, and abused as a monster and a heathen. The cruel treatment which the prince received induced him to fly; hisflight was discovered; he was brought back to Berlin, condemned todeath as a deserter and only saved from the fate of a malefactor bythe intercession of half of the crowned heads of Europe. A hollowreconciliation was effected; and the prince was permitted, at last, toretire to one of the royal palaces, where he amused himself withbooks, billiards, balls, and banquets. He opened a correspondence withVoltaire, and became an ardent admirer of his opinions. 

[Sidenote: Accession of Frederic the Great. ]

In 1740, the old king died, and Frederic II. Mounted an absolutethrone. He found a well filled treasury, and a splendidly disciplinedarmy. His customary pleasures were abandoned, and dreams of gloryfilled his ambitious soul. 

Scarcely was he seated on his throne before military aggrandizementbecame the animating principle of his life. 

His first war was the conquest of Silesia, one of the richestprovinces of the Austrian empire. It belonged to Maria Theresa, Queenof Hungary and Bohemia, daughter of the late emperor of Germany, whosesuccession was guaranteed by virtue of the Pragmatic Sanction--a lawwhich the Emperor Charles passed respecting his daughter's claim, andwhich claim was recognized by the old king of Prussia, and ratified byall the leading powers of Europe. Without a declaration of war, without complaints, without a cause, scarcely without a pretext, fromthe mere lust of dominion, Frederic commenced hostilities, in thedepth of winter, when invasion was unexpected, and when the garrisonswere defenceless. Without a battle, one of the oldest provinces ofAustria was seized, and the royal robber returned in triumph to hiscapital. 

Such an outrage and crime astonished and alarmed the whole civilizedworld, and Europe armed itself to revenge and assist the unfortunatequeen, whose empire was threatened with complete dismemberment. Frederic was alarmed, and a hollow peace was made. But, in two years, the war again broke out. To recover Silesia and to humble Frederic wasthe aim of Maria Theresa. She succeeded in securing the coöperation ofRussia, France, Sweden, and Saxony. No one doubted of the ruin of thehouse of Brandenburg. Six hundred thousand men were arrayed to crushan upstart monarchy, and an unprincipled king, who had trampled on allthe laws of nations and all the principles of justice. 

[Sidenote: The Seven Years' War. ]

The resistance of Frederic to these immense forces constitutes thecelebrated _Seven Years' War_--the most gigantic war which Europe hadseen, from the Reformation to the French Revolution. This contestbegan during the latter years of George II. , and was connected withthe colonial wars of Great Britain and France, during which Wolfe waskilled and the Canadas were gained. This war called out all theenergies of the elder Pitt, and placed Great Britain on the exaltedheight which it has since retained. 

Frederic was not so blinded as not to perceive the extent of hisdangers; and his successful resistance to the armies which his ownoffensive war had raised up against him, has given him his claims tothe epithet of _Great_. Although he provoked the war, his successfuldefence of his country placed him on the very highest pinnacle ofmilitary fame. He would gladly have been relieved from the contest, but it was inevitable; and when the tempest burst upon his head, heshowed all the qualities of exalted heroism. 

Great and overwhelming odds were arrayed against him. But he himselfhad some great advantages. He was absolute master of his army, of histreasury, and of his territories. The lives and property of hissubjects were at his disposal; his subjects were brave and loyal; hewas popular with the people, and was sustained by the enthusiasm ofthe nation; his army was well disciplined; he had no sea-coast todefend, and he could concentrate all his forces upon any point hepleased, in a short time. 

His only hope was in energetic measures. He therefore invaded Saxony, at once, with sixty thousand men. His aim was to seize the statepapers at Dresden, which contained the proofs of the confederation. These were found and published, which showed that now, at least, heacted on the defensive. 

The campaign of 1756 commenced, and the first great battle was won bythe Prussians. By the victory of Lowositz, Frederic was in a bettercondition to contend with Austria. By this he got possession ofSaxony. 

The campaign of 1757 was commenced under great solicitude. Fivehundred thousand men were arrayed against two hundred thousand. NearPrague, Frederic obtained a victory, but lost twelve thousand men. Hethen invested Prague. General Daun, with a superior army, advanced toits relief. Another bloody battle was fought, and lost by the Prussianking. This seemed to be a fatal stroke. At the outset, as it were, ofthe war, he had received a check. The soldiers' confidence wasweakened. Malevolent sarcasm pointed out mistakes. The siege of Praguewas raised, and Bohemia was abandoned. A French army, at the sametime, invaded Germany; and Frederic heard also of the death of hismother--the only person whom he loved. His spirits fell, and he becamehaggard and miserable. 

The only thing for him to do now was, to protect Saxony, and securethat conquest--no very easy task. His dominions were now assailed by aFrench, a Swedish, and a Russian army. His capital was in the hands ofthe Croatians, and he was opposed by superior Austrian forces. Nowonder that he was oppressed with melancholy, and saw only the ruin ofhis house. On one thing, however, he was resolved--never to be takenalive. So he provided himself with poison, which he ever carried abouthis person. 

The heroic career of Frederic dates from this hour of misfortune andtrial. Indeed, the heroism of all great men commences in perplexity, difficulty, and danger. Success is glorious; but success is obtainedonly through struggle. Frederic's career is a splendid example of thatheroism which rises above danger, and extricates a man fromdifficulties when his cause is desperate. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Rossbach. ]

The King of Prussia first marched against the French. The two armiesmet at Rossbach. The number of the French was double that of thePrussians; but the Prussians were better disciplined, and werecommanded by an abler general. The French, however felt secure ofvictory; but they were defeated: seven thousand men were takenprisoners, together with their guns, ammunition, parrots, hair powder, and pomatum. The victory of Rossbach won for Frederic a great name, and diffused universal joy among the English and Prussians. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Leuthen. ]

After a brief rest, he turned his face towards Silesia, which hadagain fallen into the hands of the Austrians. It was for this provincethat he provoked the hostilities of Europe; and pride, as well asinterest, induced him to bend all his energies to regain it. PrinceCharles of Lorraine commanded the forces of Maria Theresa, whichnumbered eighty thousand men. Frederic could only array against him anarmy of thirty thousand. And yet, in spite of the disparity of forces, and his desperate condition, he resolved to attack the enemy. Hisgenerals remonstrated; but the hero gave full permission to all toretire, if they pleased. None were found to shun the danger. Frederic, like Napoleon, had the talent of exciting the enthusiasm of histroops. He both encouraged and threatened them. He declared that anycavalry regiment which did not, on being ordered, burst impetuously onthe foe, should after the battle, be dismounted, and converted into agarrison regiment. But he had no reason to complain. On the 5th ofDecember, the day of the ever-memorable battle of Leuthen, he selectedan officer with fifty men as his body-guard. "I shall, " said he, "expose myself much to-day; you are not to leave me for an instant: ifI fall, cover me quickly with a mantle, place me in a wagon and tellthe fact to no one. The battle cannot be avoided, and must be won. "And he obtained a glorious victory. The Austrian general abandoned astrong position, because he deemed it beneath his dignity to contendwith an inferior force in a fortified camp. His imprudence lost himthe battle. According to Napoleon, it was a masterpiece on the part ofthe victor, and placed him in the first rank of generals. Twentythousand Austrians were either killed or taken. Breslau opened itsgates to the Prussians, and Silesia was reconquered. The king's famefilled the world. Pictures of him were hung in almost every house. Theenthusiasm of Germany was not surpassed by that of England. London wasilluminated; the gay scions of aristocracy proposed to the Prussianking to leave their country and join his army; an annual subsidy ofseven hundred thousand pounds was granted by government. The battle ofLeuthen was the most brilliant in Prussian annals; out the battle ofRossbach, over the French, was attended by greater moral results. Itshowed, for the first time for several centuries, that the Germanswere really a great people, and were a match for the French, hithertodeemed invincible. 

Early in the spring of 1758, Frederic was ready for a new campaign, which was soon signalized by a great victory over the Russians, atZorndorff. It was as brilliant and decisive as the battles of Rossbachand Leuthen. A force of thirty-two thousand men defeated an army offifty-two thousand. Twenty-two thousand Russians lay dead on thefield. This victory placed Frederic at the zenith of military fame. Inless than a year, he had defeated three great armies; in less than ayear, and when nearly driven to despair, --when his cause seemedhopeless, and his enemies were rejoicing in their strength, --hesuccessively triumphed over the French, the Austrians, and theRussians; the three most powerful nations on the continent of Europe. And his moderation after victory was as marked as his self-relianceafter defeat. At this period, he stood out, to the wondering andadmiring eyes of the world, as the greatest hero and general of moderntimes. But, after this, his career was more checkered, and he wasstill in danger of being overwhelmed by his powerful enemies. 

[Sidenote: Fall of Dresden. ]

The remainder of the campaign of 1758 was spent in driving theAustrians from Silesia, and in capturing Dresden. No capital in Europehas suffered more in war than this elegant and polished city. It hasbeen often besieged and taken, but the victors have always spared itsfamous picture gallery--the finest collection of the works of the oldmasters, probably, in existence. 

But Frederic was now assailed by a new enemy, Pope Benedict XIV. Hesent a consecrated sword, a hat of crimson velvet, and a dove ofpearls, --"the mystic symbol of the divine Comforter, "--to MarshalDaun, the ablest of the Austrian generals, and the conqueror at Kolinand Hochkirchen. It was the rarest of the papal gifts, and had beenonly bestowed, in the course of six centuries, on Godfrey of Bouillon, by Urban II. , when he took Jerusalem; on Alva, after his massacres inHolland; and on Sobieski, after his deliverance of Vienna, whenbesieged by the Turks. It had never been conferred, except for thedefence of the "Holy Catholic Church. " But this greatest of papalgifts made no impression on the age which read Montesquieu andVoltaire. A flood of satirical pamphlets inundated Christendom, andthe world laughed at the impotent weapons which had once beenthunderbolts in the hands of Hildebrand or Innocent III. 

[Sidenote: Reverses of Frederic. ]

The fourth year of the war proved disastrous to Frederic. He did notlose military reputation, but he lost his cities and armies. Theforces of his enemies were nearly overwhelming. The Austrians invadedSaxony, and menaced Silesia, while the Russians gained a victory overthe Prussians at Kunersdorf, and killed eighteen thousand men. TheRussians did not improve this great victory over Frederic, whichnearly drove him to despair. But he rallied, and was again defeated inthree disastrous battles. In his distress, he fed his troops onpotatoes and rye bread, took from the peasant his last horse, debasedhis coin, and left his civil functionaries unpaid. 

The campaign of 1760 was, at first, unfavorable to the Prussians. Frederic had only ninety thousand men, and his enemies had two hundredthousand, in the field. He was therefore obliged to maintain thedefensive. But still disasters thickened. General Loudon obtained agreat victory over his general, Fouqué, in Silesia. Instead of beingdiscouraged by this new defeat, he formed the extraordinary resolutionof wresting Dresden from the hands of the Austrians. But he pretendedto retreat from Saxony, and advance to Silesia. General Daun wasdeceived, and decoyed from Saxony in pursuit of him. As soon asFrederic had retired a considerable distance from Dresden, hereturned, and bombarded it. But he did not succeed in taking it, andwas forced to retreat to Silesia. It was there his good fortune togain a victory over the Austrians, and prevent their junction with theRussians. At Torgau, he again defeated an army of sixty-four thousandof the enemy, with a force of only forty-four thousand. This closedthe campaign, and the position of the parties was nearly the same asat the commencement of it. The heart of Frederic was now ulceratedwith bitterness in view of the perseverance of his enemies, who wereresolved to crush him. He should, however, have remembered that he hadprovoked their implacable resentment, by the commission of a greatcrime. 

Although Frederic, by rare heroism, had maintained his ground, stillhis resources were now nearly exhausted, and he began to look around, in vain, for a new supply of men, horses, and provisions. The circlewhich his enemies had drawn around him was obviously becoming smaller. In a little while, to all appearance, he would be crushed byoverwhelming forces. 

[Sidenote: Continued Disasters. ]

Under these circumstances, the campaign in 1761 was opened; but noevent of importance occurred until nearly the close of the year. Onthe whole, it was disastrous to Prussia. Half of Silesia was taken bythe Austrians, and the Russian generals were successful in Pomerania. And a still greater misfortune happened to Frederic in consequence ofthe resignation of Pitt, who had ever been his firmest ally, and hadgranted him large subsidies, when he was most in need of them. On theretirement of the English minister, these subsidies were withdrawn, and the party which had thwarted William III. , which had persecutedMarlborough, and had given up the Catalans, came into power--theTories. "It was indifferent to them whether the house of Hohenstaufenor Hohenzollern should be dominant in Germany. " But Pitt and the Whigsargued that no sacrifice would be too great to preserve the balance ofpower. The defection of England, however, filled the mind of Fredericwith implacable hatred, and he never could bear to hear even the nameof England mentioned. The defection of this great ally made hisaffairs desperate; and no one, taking a dispassionate view of thecontending parties, could doubt but that the ruin of the Prussian kingwas inevitable. Maria Theresa was so confident of success, that shedisbanded twenty thousand of her troops. 

But Providence had ordered otherwise. A great and unexpected changecame over the fortunes of Frederic. His heroism was now to berewarded--not the vulgar heroism which makes a sudden effort, andgains a single battle, but that well-sustained heroism which strivesin the midst of defeat, and continues to hope when even noble heartsare sinking in despair. On the 5th of January, 1762, Elizabeth, theempress of Russia, died; and her successor, Peter III. , who was anadmirer of Frederic, and even a personal friend, returned the Prussianprisoners, withdrew his troops from the Prussian territories, dressedhimself in a Prussian uniform, and wore the black eagle of Prussia onhis breast. He even sent fifteen thousand troops to reënforce the armyof Frederic. 

England and France had long been wearied of this war, and formed aseparate treaty for themselves. Prussia and Austria were thereforeleft to combat each other. If Austria, assisted by France and Russia, could not regain Silesia and ruin Prussia, it certainly was not strongenough to conquer Frederic single-handed. The proud Maria Theresa wascompelled to make peace with that heroic but unprincipled robber, whohad seized one of the finest provinces of the Austrian empire. InFebruary, the treaty of Hubertsburg was signed, by which Fredericretained his spoil. He, in comparison with the other belligerentparties was the gainer. But no acquisition of territory couldcompensate for those seven years of toil, expense, and death. Aftersix years, he entered his capital in triumph; but he beheld everywhere the melancholy marks of devastation and suffering. The fieldswere untilled, houses had been sacked, population had declined, andfamine and disease had spread a funereal shade over the dwellings ofthe poor. He had escaped death, but one sixth of the whole malepopulation of Prussia had been killed, and untold millions of propertyhad been destroyed. In some districts, no laborers but women were seenin the fields, and fifteen thousand houses had been burnt in his owncapital. 

[Sidenote: Exhaustion of Prussia by the War. ]

It is very remarkable that no national debt was incurred by the kingof Prussia, in spite of all his necessities. He always, in the worstof times, had a year's revenue in advance; and, at the close of thewar, to show the world that he was not then impoverished, he built asplendid palace at Potsdam, which nearly equalled the magnificence ofVersailles. 

But he also did all in his power to alleviate the distress which hiswars had caused. Silesia received three millions of thalers, andPomerania two millions. Fourteen thousand houses were rebuilt;treasury notes, which had depreciated, were redeemed; officers who haddistinguished themselves were rewarded; and the widows and children ofthose who had fallen were pensioned. 

The possession of Silesia did not, indeed, compensate for the SevenYears' War; but the struggles which the brave Prussians made for theirnational independence, when assailed on all sides by powerful enemies, were not made in vain. Had they not been made, worse evils would havehappened. Prussia would not have held her place in the scale ofnations, and the people would have fallen in self-respect. It waswrong in Frederic to seize the possession of another. In so doing, hewas in no respect better than a robber: and he paid a penalty for hiscrime. But he also fought in self-defence. This defence was honorableand glorious, and this entitles him to the name of _Great_. 

After the peace of Hubertsburg, in 1763, Prussia, for a time, enjoyedrepose, and the king devoted himself to the improvement of hiscountry. But the army received his greatest consideration, and a peaceestablishment of one hundred and sixty thousand men was maintained; animmense force for so small a kingdom, but deemed necessary in suchunsettled times. Frederic amused himself in building palaces, inwriting books, and corresponding with literary friends. But schemes ofambition were, after all, paramount in his mind. 

The Seven Years' War had scarcely closed before the partition ofPoland was effected, the greatest political crime of that age, forwhich the king of Prussia was chiefly responsible. 

The Bavarian war was the next great political event of importancewhich occurred during the reign of Frederic. The emperor of Germanyformed a project for the dismemberment of the electorate of Bavaria. The liberties of the Germanic body were in danger, and Frederic cameto the rescue. On this occasion, he was the opposer of lawlessambition. In 1778, he took the field with a powerful army; but noaction ensued. The Austrian court found it expedient to abandon thedesign, and the peace of Teschen prevented another fearful contest. The two last public acts of Frederic were the establishment, in 1785, of the Germanic Union for preserving the constitution of the empire, and a treaty of amity and commerce, in 1786, with the United States ofAmerica, which was a model of liberal policy respecting the rights ofindependent nations, both in peace and war. 

[Sidenote: Death of Frederic. ]

He died on the 17th of August, 1786, in the seventy-fifth year of hisage, and the forty-seventh of his reign. On the whole, he was one ofthe most remarkable men of his age, and had a great influence on thecondition of his country. 

His distinguishing peculiarity was his admiration of, and devotion to, the military profession, which he unduly exalted. An ensign in hisarmy ranked higher than a counsellor of legation or a professor ofphilosophy. His ordinary mode of life was simple and unostentatious, and his favorite residence was the palace of Sans Souci, at Potsdam. He was very fond of music, and of the society of literary men; but hemortified them by his patronizing arrogance, and worried them by hispractical jokes. His favorite literary companions were infidelphilosophers, and Voltaire received from him marks of the highestdistinction. But the king of letters could not live with the despotwho solicited his society, and an implacable hatred succeededfamiliarity and friendship. The king had considerable literaryreputation, and was the author of several works. He was much admiredby his soldiers, and permitted in them uncommon familiarity. He wasever free from repulsive formality and bolstered dignity. He wasindustrious, frugal, and vigilant. Nothing escaped his eye, and heattended to the details of his administration. He was probably themost indefatigable sovereign that ever existed, but displayed morepersonal ability than enlarged wisdom. 

[Sidenote: Character of Frederic. ]

But able and successful as he was as a ruler, he was one of those menfor whom it is impossible to entertain a profound respect. He wascruel, selfish, and parsimonious. He was prodigal of the blood of hissubjects, and ungenerous in his treatment of those who had sacrificedevery thing for his sake. He ruled by fear rather than by love. Heintroduced into every department the precision of a rigid militarydiscipline, and had no faith in any power but that of mechanicalagencies. He quarrelled with his best friends, and seemed to enjoy themiseries he inflicted. He was contemptuous of woman, and disdainful ofChristianity. His egotism was not redeemed by politeness oraffability, and he made no efforts to disguise his unmitigatedselfishness and heartless injustice. He had no loftiness of character, and no appreciation of elevation of sentiment in others. He worshippedonly himself and rewarded those only who advanced his ambitiousdesigns. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The Posthumous Works of Frederic II. Gillies's View of the Reign of Frederic II. Thiebault's Mémoires de Frédéric le Grand. Voltaire's Idée du Roi de Prusse. Life of Baron Trenck. Macaulay's Essay on the Life and Times of Frederic the Great. Coxe's House of Austria. Tower's, Johnson's, and Campbell's Life of Frederic the Great. 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

MARIA THERESA AND CATHARINE II. 

Contemporaneous with Frederic the Great were Maria Theresa andCatharine II. --two sovereigns who claim an especial notice, asrepresenting two mighty empires. The part which Maria Theresa took inthe Seven Years' War has been often alluded to and it is not necessaryto recapitulate the causes or events of that war. She andCatharine II. Were also implicated with Frederic in the partition ofPoland. The misfortunes of that unhappy country will be separatelyconsidered. In alluding to Maria Theresa, we cannot but review thehistory of that great empire over which she ruled, the most powerfulof the German states. The power of Austria, at different times sincethe death of the Emperor Charles V. , threatened the liberties ofEurope; and, to prevent her ascendency, the kings of France, England, and Prussia have expended the treasure and wasted the blood of theirsubjects. 

[Sidenote: The Germanic Constitution. ]

By the peace of Westphalia, in 1648, at the close of the Thirty Years'War, the constitution of Germany was established upon a firm basis. The religious differences between the Catholics and the Protestantswere settled, and religious toleration secured in all the states ofthe empire. It was settled that no decree of the Diet was to passwithout a majority of suffrages, and that the Imperial Chamber and theAulic Council should be composed of a due proportion of Catholics andProtestants. The former was instituted by the Emperor Maximilian I. , in 1495, at the Diet of Worms, and was a judicial tribunal, and thehighest court of appeal. It consisted of seventeen judges nominated bythe emperor, and took cognizance of Austrian affairs chiefly. TheAulic Council was also judicial, and was composed of eighteen personsand attended chiefly to business connected with the empire. Themembers of these two great judicial tribunals were Catholics; andthere were also frequent disputes between them as to their respectivejurisdictions. It was ordained by the treaty of Westphalia that aperfect equality should be observed in the appointment of the membersof these two important courts; but, in fact, twenty-four Protestantsand twenty-six Catholics were appointed to the Imperial Chamber. Thevarious states had the right of presenting members, according topolitical importance. The Aulic Council was composed of sixProtestants and twelve Catholics, and was a tribunal to settledifficulties between the various states of which Germany was composed. 

These states were nearly independent of each other, but united underone common head. Each state had its own peculiar government, which wasgenerally monarchical, and regulated its own coinage, police, andadministration of justice. Each kingdom, electorate, principality, andimperial city, which were included in the states of Germany, had theright to make war, form alliances, conclude peace, and sendambassadors to foreign courts. 

The Diet of the empire consisted of representatives of each of thestates, appointed by the princes themselves, and took cognizance ofmatters of common interest, such as regulations respecting commerce, the license of books, and the military force which each state wasrequired to furnish. 

The emperor had power, in some respects, over all these states; but itwas chiefly confined to his hereditary dominions. He could notexercise any despotic control over the various princes of the empire;but, as hereditary sovereign of Austria, Styria, Moravia, Bohemia, Hungary, and the Tyrol, he was the most powerful prince in Europeuntil the aggrandisement of Louis XIV. 

Ferdinand III. Was emperor of Germany at the peace of Westphalia; buthe did not long survive it. He died in 1657, and his son Leopoldsucceeded him as sovereign of all the Austrian dominions. He had notcompleted his eighteenth year, but nevertheless was, five monthsafter, elected Emperor of Germany by the Electoral Diet. 

Great events occurred during the reign of Leopold I. --the Turkish war, the invasion of the Netherlands by Louis XIV. , the heroic struggles ofthe Prince of Orange, the French invasion of the Palatinate, theaccession of a Bourbon prince to the throne of Spain, the discontentsof Hungary, and the victories of Marlborough and Eugene. Most of thesehave been already alluded to, especially in the chapter on Louis XIV. , and, therefore, will not be further discussed. 

[Sidenote: The Hungarian War. ]

The most important event connected with Austrian affairs, as distinctfrom those of France, England, and Holland, was the Hungarian war. Hungary was not a province of Austria, but was a distinct state. In1526, the crowns of the two kingdoms were united, like those ofEngland and Hanover under George I. But the Hungarians were alwaysimpatient of the rule of the Emperor of Germany, and, in the space ofa century, arose five times in defence of their liberties. 

In 1667, one of these insurrections took place, occasioned by theaggressive policy and government of Leopold. The Hungarians conspiredto secure their liberties, but in vain. So soon as the emperor wasaware of the conspiracy of his Hungarian subjects, he adopted vigorousmeasures, quartered thirty thousand additional troops in Hungary, loaded the people with taxes, occupied the principal fortresses, banished the chiefs, and changed the constitution of the country. Healso attempted to suppress Protestantism, and committed all theexcesses of a military despotism. These accumulated oppressions drovea brave but turbulent people to despair, and both Catholics andProtestants united for their common safety. The insurgents wereassisted by the Prince of Transylvania, and were supplied with moneyand provisions by the French. They also found a noble defender inEmeric Tekeli, a young Hungarian noble, who hated Austria as intenselyas Hannibal hated Rome, and who, at the head of twenty thousand men, defended his country against the emperor. Moreover, he successfullyintrigued with the Turks, who invaded Hungary with two hundredthousand men, and advanced to lay siege to Vienna. This immense armywas defeated by John Sobieski, to whom Leopold appealed in hisnecessities, and the Turks were driven out of Hungary. Tekeli wasgradually insulated from those who had formed the great support of hiscause, and, in consequence of jealousies which Leopold had fomentedbetween him and the Turks, was arrested and sent in chains toConstantinople. New victories followed the imperial army, and Leopoldsucceeded in making the crown of Hungary, hitherto elective, hereditary in his family. He instituted in the conquered country ahorrible inquisitorial tribunal, and perpetrated cruelties whichscarcely find a parallel in the proscriptions of Marius and Sylla. Hisson Joseph, at the age of ten, was crowned king of Hungary with greatmagnificence, and with the usual solemnities. 

When the Hungarian difficulties were settled, Leopold had more leisureto prosecute his war with the Turks, in which he gained signalsuccesses. The Ottoman Porte was humbled and crippled, and a greatsource of discontent to the Christian powers of Europe was removed. Bythe peace of Carlovitz, (1697, ) Leopold secured Hungary and Sclavonia, which had been so long occupied by the Turks, and consolidated hisempire by the acquisition of Transylvania. 

[Sidenote: The Emperor Joseph. ]

Leopold I. Lived only to witness the splendid victories of Marlboroughand Eugene, by which the power of his great rival, Louis, waseffectually reduced. He died in 1705, having reigned forty-six years;the longest reign in the Austrian annals, except that of Frederic III. 

He was a man of great private virtues; pure in his morals, faithful tohis wife, a good father, and a kind master. He was minute in hisdevotions, unbounded in his charities, and cultivated in his taste. But he was reserved, cold, and phlegmatic. His jealousy of Sobieskiwas unworthy of his station, and his severities in Hungary made himthe object of execration. He was narrow, bigoted, and selfish. But helived in an age of great activity, and his reign forms an era in themilitary and civil institutions of his country. The artillery had beengradually lightened, and received most of the improvements which atpresent are continued. Bayonets had been added to muskets, and the useof pikes abandoned. Armies were increased from twenty or thirtythousand men to one hundred thousand, more systematically formed. Apolice was established in the cities, and these were lighted andpaved. Jurisprudence was improved, and numerous grievances wereredressed. 

Leopold was succeeded by his eldest son, Joseph, who had an energeticand aspiring mind. His reign is memorable for the continuation of thegreat War of the Spanish Succession, signalized by the victories ofMarlborough and Eugene, the humiliation of the French, and the careerof Charles XII. Of Sweden. He also restored Bohemia to its electoralrights, rewarded the elector palatine with the honors and territorieswrested from his family by the Thirty Years' War, and confirmed thehouse of Hanover in the possession of the ninth electorate. He hadnearly restored tranquillity to his country, when he died (1711) ofthe small-pox--a victim to the ignorance of his physicians. He was alover and patron of the arts, and spoke several languages withelegance and fluency. But he had the usual faults of absolute princes;was prodigal in his expenditures, irascible in his temper, fond ofpageants and pleasure, and enslaved by women. 

[Sidenote: Accession of Maria Theresa. ]

He was succeeded by his brother, the Archduke Charles, under the titleof Charles VI. Soon after his accession, the tranquillity of Europewas established by the peace of Utrecht, and Austria once more becamethe preponderating power in Europe. But Charles VI. Was not capable ofappreciating the greatness of his position, or the true sources ofnational power. He, however, devoted himself zealously to the affairsof his empire, and effected some useful reforms. As he had no maleissue, he had drawn up a solemn law, called the _Pragmatic Sanction_, according to which he transferred to his daughter, Maria Theresa, hisvast hereditary possessions. He found great difficulty in securing theassent of the European powers to this law; but, after a while, heeffected his object. On his death, (1740, ) Maria Theresa succeeded toall the dominions of the house of Austria. 

No princess ever ascended a throne under circumstances of greaterperil, or in a situation which demanded greater energy and fortitude. Her army had dwindled to thirty thousand; her treasury contained onlyone hundred thousand florins; a general scarcity of provisionsdistressed the people, and the vintage was cut off by the frost. 

Under all these embarrassing circumstances, the Elector of Bavarialaid claim to her territory, and Frederic II. Marched into Silesia. Ithas been already stated that England sympathized with her troubles, and lent a generous aid. Her appeal to her Hungarian subjects, and theenthusiasm they manifested in her cause, have also been described. Theboldness of Frederic and the distress of Maria Theresa drew upon themthe eyes of all Europe. Hostilities were prosecuted four years, whichresulted in the acquisition of Silesia by the King of Prussia. Thepeace of Dresden (1745) gave a respite to Germany, and Frederic andMaria Theresa prepared for new conflicts. 

The Seven Years' War has been briefly described, in connection withthe reign of Frederic, and need not be further discussed. The war wasonly closed by the exhaustion of all the parties engaged in it. 

In 1736, Maria Theresa was married to Francis Stephen, Grand Duke ofTuscany, and he was elected (1745) Emperor of Germany, under the titleof _Francis I. _ He died soon after the peace of Hubertsburg wassigned, and his son Joseph succeeded to the throne of the empire, andwas co-regent, as his father had been, with Maria Theresa. But theempress queen continued to be the real, as she was the legitimate, sovereign of Austria, and took an active part in all the affairs ofEurope. 

[Sidenote: Maria Theresa Institutes Reforms. ]

When the tranquillity of her kingdom was restored, she founded variouscolleges, reformed the public schools, promoted agriculture andinstituted many beneficial regulations for the prosperity of hersubjects. She reformed the church, diminished the number ofsuperfluous clergy, suppressed the Inquisition and the Jesuits, andformed a system of military economy which surpassed the boastedarrangements of Frederic II. "She combined private economy with publicliberality, dignity with condescension, elevation of soul withhumility of spirit, and the virtues of domestic life with the splendidqualities which grace a throne. " Her death, in 1780, was felt as ageneral loss to the people, who adored her; and her reign isconsidered as one of the most illustrious in Austrian annals. 

Her reign was, however, sullied by the partition of Poland, in whichshe was concerned with Frederic the Great and Catharine II. Beforethis is treated, we will consider the reign of the Russian empress. 

 * * * * *

The reign of Catharine II. , like that of Maria Theresa, is interlinkedwith that of Frederic. But some remarks concerning her predecessors, after the death of Peter the Great, are first necessary. 

[Sidenote: Successors of Peter the Great. ]

Catharine, the wife of Peter, was crowned empress before his death. The first years of her reign were agreeable to the people, because shediminished the taxes, and introduced a mild policy in the governmentof her subjects. She intrusted to Prince Menzikoff an important sharein the government of the realm. 

But Catharine, who, during the reign of Peter I. , had displayed somuch enterprise and intrepidity, very soon disdained business, andabandoned herself to luxury and pleasure. She died in 1727, andPeter II. Ascended her throne, chiefly in consequence of the intriguesof Menzikoff, who, like Richelieu, wished to make the emperor hispuppet. 

Peter II. Was only thirteen years of age when he became emperor. Hewas the son of Alexis, and, consequently, grandson of Peter I. Hisyouth did not permit him to assume the reins of government, and everything was committed to the care of Menzikoff, who reigned, for a time, with absolute power. But he, at last, incurred the displeasure of hisyouthful master, and was exiled to Siberia. But Peter II. Did not longsurvive the disgrace of his minister. He died of the small-pox, in1730. 

He was succeeded by Anne, Duchess of Holstein, and eldest daughter ofCatharine I. But she lived but a few months after her accession to thethrone, and the Princess Elizabeth succeeded her. 

The Empress Elizabeth resembled her mother, the beautiful Catharine, but was voluptuous and weak. She abandoned herself to puerileamusements and degrading follies. And she was as superstitious as shewas debauched. She would continue whole hours on her knees before animage, to which she spoke, and which she ever consulted; and thenwould turn from bigotry to infamous sensuality. She hatedFrederic II. , and assisted Maria Theresa in her struggles. Russiagained no advantage from the Seven Years' War, except that ofaccustoming the Russians to the tactics of modern warfare. She died in1762, and was succeeded by the Grand Duke Peter Fedorowitz, son of theDuke of Holstein and Anne, daughter of Peter I. He assumed the titleof Peter III. 

[Sidenote: Murder of Peter III. ]

Peter III. Was a weak prince, but disposed to be beneficent. One ofhis first acts was to recall the numerous exiles whom the jealousy ofElizabeth had consigned to the deserts of Siberia. Among them wasBiren, the haughty lover and barbarous minister of the Empress Anneand Marshal Munich, a veteran of eighty-two years of age. Peter alsoabolished the Inquisition, established by Alexis Michaelowitz, andpromoted commerce, the arts, and sciences. He attempted to imitate theking of Prussia, for whom he had an extravagant admiration. He set atliberty the Prussian prisoners, and made peace with Frederic II. Hehad a great respect for Germany, but despised the country over whichhe was called to reign. But his partiality for the Germans, and hisnumerous reforms, alienated the affections of his subjects, and he wasnot sufficiently able to curb the spirit of discontent. He imitatedhis immediate predecessors in the vices of drunkenness and sensuality, and was guilty of great imprudences. He reigned but a few months, being dethroned and murdered. His wife, the Empress Catharine, was thechief of the conspirators; and she was urged to the bloody act by herown desperate circumstances. She was obnoxious to her husband, whoprobably would have destroyed her, had his life been prolonged. She, in view of his hostility, and prompted by an infernal ambition, soughtto dethrone her husband. She was assisted by some of the most powerfulnobles, and gained over most of the regiments of the imperial guard. The Archbishop of Novgorod and the clergy were friendly to her, because they detested the reforms which Peter had attempted to make. Catharine became mistress of St. Petersburg, and caused herself to becrowned Empress of Russia, in one of the principal churches. Peter hadtimely notice of the revolt, but not the energy to suppress it. Helistened to the entreaties of women, rather than to the counsels ofthose veteran generals who still supported his throne. He was timid, irresolute, and vacillating. He was doomed. He was a weak andinfatuated prince, and nothing could save him. He surrendered himselfinto the hands of Catharine, abdicated his empire, and, shortly after, died of poison. His wife seated herself, without further opposition, on his throne; and the principal nobles of the empire, the army, andthe clergy, took the oath of allegiance, and the monarchs of Europeacknowledged her as the absolute sovereign of Russia. In 1763, she wasfirmly established in the power which had been before wielded byCatharine I. She had dethroned an imbecile prince, whom she abhorred;but the revolution was accomplished without bloodshed, and resulted inthe prosperity of Russia. 

Catharine was a woman of great moral defects; but she had manyexcellences to counterbalance them; and her rule was, on the whole, able and beneficent. She was no sooner established in the power whichshe had usurped, than she directed attention to the affairs of herempire, and sought to remedy the great evils which existed. Shedevoted herself to business, advanced commerce and the arts, regulatedthe finances, improved the jurisprudence of the realm, patronized allworks of internal improvement, rewarded eminent merit, encouragededucation, and exercised a liberal and enlightened policy in herintercourse with foreign powers. After engaging in business with herministers, she would converse with scholars and philosophers. Withsome she studied politics, and with others literature. She toleratedall religions, abolished odious courts, and enacted mild laws. Sheheld out great inducements for foreigners to settle in Russia, andfounded colleges and hospitals in all parts of her empire. 

[Sidenote: Assassination of Ivan. ]

Beneficent as her reforms were, she nevertheless committed some greatpolitical crimes. One of these was the assassination of the dethronedIvan, the great-grandson of the Czar Ivan Alexejewitsch, who wasbrother of Peter the Great. On the death of the Empress Anne, in 1731, he had been proclaimed emperor: but when Elizabeth was placed upon thethrone, the infant was confined in the fortress of Schlussenburg. Herehe was so closely guarded and confined, that he was never allowedaccess to the open air or the light of day. On the accession ofCatharine, he was twenty-three years of age, and was extremelyignorant and weak. But a conspiracy was formed to liberate him, andplace him on the throne. The attempt proved abortive, and the princeperished by the sword of his jailers, who were splendidly rewarded fortheir infamous services. 

Her scheme of foreign aggrandizement, and especially her interferencein the affairs of Poland, caused the Ottoman Porte to declare waragainst her, which war proved disastrous to Turkey, and contributed toaggrandize the empire of Russia. The Turks lost several battles on thePruth, Dniester, and Danube; the provinces of Wallachia, and Moldavia, and Bessarabia submitted to the Russian arms; while a great navalvictory, in the Mediterranean, was gained by Alexis Orloff, whoseshare in the late revolution had raised him from the rank of a simplesoldier to that of a general of the empire, and a favorite of theempress. The naval defeat of the Turks at Tschesmé, by Orloff andElphinstone, was one of the most signal of that age, and greatlyweakened the power of Turkey. The war was not terminated until 1774, when the Turks were compelled to make peace, by the conditions ofwhich, Russia obtained a large accession of territory, a great sum ofmoney, the free navigation of the Black Sea, and a passage through theDardanelles. 

In 1772 occurred the partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia, andRussia. Catharine and Frederic II. Were the chief authors of thisgreat political crime, which will be treated in the notice on Poland. 

The reign of Catharine was not signalized by any other great politicalevents which affected materially the interests of Europe, except thecontinuation of the war with the Turks, which broke out again in 1778, and which was concluded in 1792, by the treaty of Jassy. In this war, Prince Potemkin, the favorite and prime minister of Catharine, greatlydistinguished himself; also General Suwarrow, afterwards noted for hisPolish campaigns. In this war Russia lost two hundred thousand men, and the Turks three hundred and thirty thousand, besides expending twohundred and fifty millions of piasters. The most important politicalconsequence was the aggrandizement of Russia, whose dominion wasestablished on the Black Sea. 

[Sidenote: Death of Catharine. ]

Catharine, having acquired, either by arms or intrigues, almost halfof Poland, the Crimea, and a part of the frontiers of Turkey, thenturned her arms against Persia. But she died before she could realizeher dreams of conquest. At her death, she was the most powerfulsovereign that ever reigned in Russia. She was succeeded by her son, Paul I. , (1796, ) and her remains were deposited by the side of hermurdered husband, while his chief murderers, Alexis Orloff and PrinceBaratinski, were ordered to stand at her funeral, on each side of hiscoffin as chief mourners. 

Catharine, though a woman of great energy and talent, was ruled byfavorites; the most distinguished of whom were Gregory Orloff andPrince Potemkin. The former was a man of brutal manners and surprisingaudacity; the latter was more civilized, but was a man disgraced, likeOrloff, by every vice. His memory, however, is still cherished inRussia on account of his military successes. He received more honorsand rewards from his sovereign than is recorded of any favorite andminister of modern times. His power was equal to what Richelieuenjoyed, and his fortune was nearly as great as Mazarin's. He wasknight of the principal orders of Prussia, Sweden, Poland, and Russia, field-marshal, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies, high admiralof the fleets, great hetman of the Cossacks, and chamberlain of theempress. He received from her a fortune of fifty millions of roubles;equal to nearly twenty-five millions of dollars. The Orloffs receivedalso about seventeen millions in lands, and palaces, and money, withforty-five thousand peasants. 

[Sidenote: Her Character. ]

Catharine had two passions which never left her but with her lastbreath--the love of the other sex, which degenerated into the mostunbounded licentiousness, and the love of glory, which sunk intovanity. She expended ninety millions of roubles on her favorites, thenumber of which is almost incredible; and she was induced to engage inwars, which increased the burdens of her subjects. 

With the exception of these two passions, her character is interestingand commanding. Her reign was splendid, and her court magnificent. Herinstitutions and monuments were to Russia what the magnificence ofLouis XIV. Was to France. She was active and regular in her habits;was never hurried away by anger, and was never a prey to dejection;caprice and ill humor were never perceived in her conduct; she washumorous, gay, and affable; she appreciated literature, and encouragedgood institutions; and, with all her faults, obtained the love andreverence of her subjects. She had not the virtues of Maria Theresa, but had, perhaps, greater energy of character. Her foulest act was herpart in the dismemberment of Poland, which now claims a notice. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --For the reign of Maria Theresa, see Archdeacon Coxe's Memoirs of the House of Austria, which is the most interesting and complete. See also Putter's Constitution of the Germanic Empire; Kolhrausch's History of Germany; Heeren's Modern History; Smyth's Lectures; also a history of Germany, in Dr. Lardner's Cyclopædia. For a life of Catharine, see Castina's Life, translated by Hunter; Tooke's Life of Catharine II. ; Ségur's Vie de Catharine II. ; Coxe's Travels; Heeren's and Russell's Modern History. 

CHAPTER XXV. 

CALAMITIES OF POLAND. 

[Sidenote: Calamities of Poland. ]

No kingdom in Europe has been subjected to so many misfortunes andchanges, considering its former greatness, as the Polish monarchy. Most of the European states have retained their ancient limits, forseveral centuries, without material changes, but Poland has beenconquered, dismembered, and plundered. Its ancient constitution hasbeen completely subverted, and its extensive provinces are now annexedto the territories of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The greatness ofthe national calamities has excited the sympathy of Christian nations, and its unfortunate fate is generally lamented. 

In the sixteenth century, Poland was a greater state than Russia, andwas the most powerful of the northern kingdoms of Europe. The Poles, as a nation, are not, however, of very ancient date. Prior to theninth century, they were split up into numerous tribes, independent ofeach other, and governed by their respective chieftains. Christianitywas introduced in the tenth century, and the earliest records of thepeople were preserved by the monks. We know but little, withcertainty, until the time of Piast, who united the various states, andwhose descendants reigned until 1386, when the dynasty of theJagellons commenced, and continued till 1572. Under the princes ofthis line, the government was arbitrary and oppressive. War was thegreat business and amusement of the princes, and success in it broughtthe highest honors. The kings were, however, weak, cruel, andcapricious, ignorant, fierce, and indolent. The records of theirreigns are the records of drunkenness, extortion, cruelty, lust, andviolence--the common history of all barbarous kings. There were someof the Polish princes who were benignant and merciful, but the greatmajority of them, like the Merovingian and Carlovingian princes of theDark Ages, were unfit to reign, were the slaves of superstition, andthe tools of designing priests. There is a melancholy gloom hangingover the annals of the Middle Ages, especially in reference to kings. And yet their reigns, though stained by revolting crimes, generallywere to be preferred to the anarchy of an interregnum, or theovergrown power of nobles. 

The brightest period in the history of Poland was during the reigns ofthe Jagellon princes, especially when Casimir I. Held the sceptre ofempire. During his reign, Lithuania, which then comprised Hungary, Bohemia, and Silesia, was added to his kingdom. The university ofCracow was founded, and Poland was the great resort of the Jews, towhom were committed the trade and commerce of the land. But the rigorsof the feudal system, and the vast preponderance of the aristocracy, proved unfortunate for the prosperity of the kingdom. What in Englandwas the foundation of constitutional liberty, proved in Poland to besubversive of all order and good government. In England, therepresentative of the nation was made an instrument in the hands ofthe king of humbling the great nobility. Absolutism was establishedupon the ruins of feudalism. But, in Poland, the Diet of the nationcontrolled the king, and, as the representatives of the nobilityalone, perpetuated the worst evils of the feudal system. 

[Sidenote: The Crown of Poland Made Elective. ]

When Sigismund II. , the last male heir of the house of Jagellon, died, in 1572, the nobles were sufficiently powerful to make the crownelective. From this period we date the decline of Poland. TheReformation, so beneficent in its effects, did not spread to thisSclavonic country; and the barbarism of the Middle Ages received nocheck. On the death of Sigismund, the nobles would not permit the newsovereign to be elected by the Diet, but only by the whole body of thenobility. The plain of Praga was the place selected for the election;and, at the time appointed, such a vast number of nobles arrived, thatthe plain, of twelve miles in circumference, was scarcely large enoughto contain them and their retinues. There never was such a sight seensince the crusaders were marshalled on the field of Chalcedon, for allthe nobles were gorgeously apparelled, and decked with ermine, gold, and jewels. The Polish horseman frequently invests half his fortune inhis horse and dress. In the centre of the field was the tent of thelate king, capable of accommodating eight thousand men. The candidatesfor the crown were Ernest Archduke of Austria; the Czar of Russia; aSwedish prince, and Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, and brother ofCharles IX. , king of France. 

[Sidenote: Election of Henry, Duke of Anjou. ]

The first candidate was rejected because the house of Austria wasodious to the Polish nobles; the second, on account of his arrogance;and the third, because he was not powerful enough to bring advantageto the republic. The choice fell on the Duke of Anjou; and he, for thetitle of a king, agreed to the ignominious conditions which the Polesproposed, viz. , that he should not attempt to influence the electionof his successors, or assume the title of heir of the monarchy, ordeclare war without the consent of the Diet, or impose taxes of anydescription, or have power to appoint his ambassadors, or anyforeigner to a benefice in the church; that he should convoke the Dietevery two years; and that he should not marry without its permission. He also was required to furnish four thousand French troops, in caseof war; to apply annually, for the sole benefit of the Polish state, aconsiderable part of his hereditary revenues; to pay the debts of thecrown; and to educate, at his own expense, at Paris or Cracow, onehundred Polish nobles. He had scarcely been crowned when his brotherdied, and he was called to the throne of France. But he found itdifficult to escape from his kingdom, the government of which he foundto be burdensome and vexatious. No criminal ever longed to escape froma prison, more than this prince to break the fetters which bound himto his imperious subjects. He resolved to run away; concealed hisintentions with great address; gave a great ball at his palace; and inthe midst of the festivities, set out with full speed towards Silesia. He was pursued, but reached the territories of the emperor of Germanybefore he was overtaken. He reached Paris in safety, and was soonafter crowned as king of France. 

[Sidenote: Sobieski Assists the Emperor Leopold. ]

He was succeeded by Stephen, Duke of Transylvania; and he, again, bySigismund, Prince of Sweden. The two sons of Sigismund, successively, were elected kings of Poland, the last of whom, John II. , wasembroiled in constant war. It was during his disastrous reign thatJohn Sobieski, with ten thousand Poles, defeated eighty thousandCossacks, the hereditary enemies of Poland. On the death of Michael, who had succeeded John II. , Sobieski was elected king, and he assumedthe title of _John III. _ He was a native noble, and was chosen for hismilitary talents and successes. Indeed, Poland needed a strong arm todefend her. Her decline had already commenced, and Sobieski himselfcould not avert the ruin which impended. For some time, Poland enjoyedcessation from war, and the energies of the monarch were directed torepair the evils which had disgraced his country. But before he couldprosecute successfully any useful reforms, the war between the Turksand the eastern powers of Europe broke out, and Vienna was besieged byan overwhelming army of two hundred thousand Mohammedans. The city wasbravely defended, but its capture seemed inevitable. The emperor ofGermany, Leopold, in his despair, implored the aid of Sobieski. He wasinvested with the command of the allied armies of Austrians, Bavarians, Saxons, and Poles, amounting to seventy thousand men. Withthis force he advanced to relieve Vienna. He did not hesitate toattack the vast forces encamped beneath the walls of the Austriancapital, and obtained one of the most signal victories in the historyof war. Immense treasures fell into his hands, and Vienna andChristendom were saved. 

But the mean-spirited emperor treated his deliverer with arrogance andchilling coldness. No gratitude was exhibited or felt. But the popesent him the rarest of his gifts--"the dove of pearls. " Sobieski, inspite of the ingratitude of Leopold, pursued his victories over theTurks; and, like Charles Martel, ten centuries before, freed Europefrom the danger of a Mohammedan yoke. But he saved a serpent, whenabout to be crushed, which turned and stung him for his kindness. Thedismemberment of his country soon followed the deliverance of Vienna. 

He was succeeded, in 1696, by Frederic Augustus, Elector of Saxony, whose reign was a constant succession of disasters. During his reign, Poland was invaded and conquered by Charles XII. Of Sweden. He wassucceeded by his son, Frederic Augustus II. , the most beautiful, extravagant, luxurious, and licentious monarch of his age. But he wasa man of elegant tastes, and he filled Dresden with pictures and worksof art, which are still the admiration of travellers. His reign, asking of Poland, was exceedingly disastrous. Muscovite and Prussianarmies traversed the plains of Poland at pleasure, and extortedwhatever they pleased. Faction was opposed by faction in the field andin the Diet. The national assembly was dissolved by the _veto_, thelaws were disregarded, and brute force prevailed on every side. Themiserable peasants in vain besought the protection of their brutal yetpowerless lords. Bands of robbers infested the roads, and hungerinvaded the cottages. The country rapidly declined in wealth, population, and public spirit. 

Under the reign of Stanislaus II. , who succeeded FredericAugustus II. , in 1764, the ambassadors of Prussia, Austria, andRussia, informed the miserable king that, in order to prevent furtherbloodshed, and restore peace to Poland, the three powers haddetermined to insist upon their claims to some of the provinces of thekingdom. This barefaced and iniquitous scheme for the dismemberment ofPoland originated with Frederic the Great. So soon as the close of theSeven Years' War allowed him repose, he turned his eyes to Poland, with a view of seizing one of her richest provinces. Territoriesinhabited by four million eight hundred thousand people, were dividedbetween Frederic, Maria Theresa, and Catharine II. There were noscruples of conscience in the breast of Frederic, or of Catharine, awoman of masculine energy, but disgraceful morals. The conscience ofMaria Theresa, however, long resisted. "The fear of hell, " said she, "restrains me from seizing another's possessions;" but sophistry wasbrought to bear upon her mind, and the lust of dominion asserted itspowerful sway. This crime was regarded with detestation by the otherpowers of Europe; but they were too much occupied with their owntroubles to interfere, except by expostulation. England was disturbedby difficulties in the colonies, and France was distracted byrevolutionary tumults. 

[Sidenote: The Liberum Veto. ]

Stanislaus, robbed of one third of his dominions, now directed hisattention to those reforms which had been so long imperatively needed. He intrusted to the celebrated Zamoyski the task of revising theconstitution. The patriotic chancellor recommended the abolition ofthe "liberum veto, " a fatal privilege, by which any one of the armedequestrians, who assembled on the plain of Praga to elect a king, ordeliberate on state affairs, had power to nullify the most importantacts, and even to dissolve the assembly. A single word, pronounced inthe vehemence of domestic strife, or by the influence of externalcorruption, could plunge the nation into a lethargic sleep. Andfaction went so far as often to lead to the dissolution of theassembly. The treasury, the army, the civil authority then fell into astate of anarchy. Zamoyski also recommended the emancipation of serfs, the encouragement of commerce, the elevation of the trading classes, and the abolition of the fatal custom of electing a king. But thePolish nobles, infatuated and doomed, opposed these wholesome reforms. They even had the madness to invoke the aid of the Empress Catharineto protect them in their ancient privileges. She sent an army intoPoland, and great disturbances resulted. 

[Sidenote: The Fall of Poland. ]

Too late, at last, the nobles perceived their folly, and adopted someof the proposed reforms. But these reforms gave a new pretence to theallied powers for a second dismemberment. An army of one hundredthousand men invaded Poland, to effect a new partition. The unhappycountry, without fortified towns or mountains, abandoned by all theworld, distracted by divisions, and destitute of fortresses andmilitary stores, was crushed by the power of gigantic enemies. Therewere patriotism and bravery left, but no union or organized strength. The patriots made a desperate struggle under Kosciusko, a Lithuaniannoble, but were forced to yield to inevitable necessity. Warsaw for atime held out against fifty thousand men; but the Polish hero wasdefeated in a decisive engagement, and unfortunately taken prisoner. His countrymen still rallied, and another bloody battle was fought atPraga, opposite Warsaw, on the other side of the Vistula, and tenthousand were slain; Praga was reduced to a heap of ruins; and twelvethousand citizens were slaughtered in cold blood. Warsaw soon aftersurrendered, Stanislaus was sent as a captive to Russia, and the finalpartition of the kingdom was made. 

"Sarmatia fell, " but not "unwept, " or "without a crime. " "She fell, "says Alison, "a victim of her own dissensions, of the chimera ofequality falsely pursued, and the rigor of aristocracy unceasinglymaintained. The eldest born of the European family was the first toperish, because she had thwarted all the ends of the social union;because she united the turbulence of democratic to the exclusion ofaristocratic societies; because she had the vacillation of a republicwithout its energy, and the oppression of a monarchy without itsstability. The Poles obstinately refused to march with other nationsin the only road to civilization; they had valor, but it could notenforce obedience to the laws; it could not preserve domestictranquillity; it could not restrain the violence of petty feuds andintestine commotions; it could not preserve the proud nobles fromunbounded dissipation and corruption; it could not prevent foreignpowers from interfering in the affairs of the kingdom; it could notdissolve the union of these powers with discontented parties at home;it could not inspire the slowly-moving machine of government withvigor, when the humblest partisan, corrupted with foreign money, couldarrest it with a word; it could not avert the entrance of foreignarmies to support the factious and rebellious; it could not uphold, ina divided country, the national independence against the combinedeffects of foreign and domestic treason; finally, it could not effectimpossibilities, nor turn aside the destroying sword which had so longimpended over it. "

But this great crime was attended with retribution. Prussia, in herefforts to destroy Poland, paralyzed her armies on the Rhine. Suwarrowentered Warsaw when its spires were reddened by the fires of Praga;but the sack of the fallen capital was forgotten in the conflagrationof Moscow. The remains of the soldiers of Kosciusko sought a refuge inrepublican France, and served with distinction, in the armies ofNapoleon, against the powers that had dismembered their country. 

The ruin of Poland, as an independent state, was not fullyaccomplished until the year 1832, when it was incorporated into thegreat empire of Russia. But the history of the late revolution, withall its melancholy results, cannot be well presented in thisconnection. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Fletcher's History of Poland. Rulhière's Histoire de l'Anarchie de Pologne. Coyer's Vie de Sobieski. Parthenay's History of Augustus II. Hordynski's History of the late Polish Revolution. Also see Lives of Frederic II. , Maria Theresa, and Catharine II. ; contemporaneous histories of Prussia, Russia, and Austria; Alison's History of Europe; Smyth's Lectures; Russell's Modern Europe; Heeren's Modern History. 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

THE DECLINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 

[Sidenote: Saracenic Empire. ]

While the great monarchies of Western Europe were struggling forpreëminence, and were developing resources greater than had everbefore been exhibited since the fall of the Roman empire, that greatpower which had alarmed and astonished Christendom in the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries, began to show the signs of weakness anddecay. Nothing, in the history of society, is more marvellous than therise of Mohammedan kingdoms. The victories of the Saracens and Turkswere rapid and complete; and in the tenth century, they were the mostsuccessful warriors on the globe, and threatened to subvert the world. They had planted the standard of the Prophet on the walls of Easterncapitals, and had extended their conquests to India on the east, andto Spain on the west. Powerful Mohammedan states had arisen in Asia, Africa, and Europe, and the Crusaders alone arrested the progress ofthese triumphant armies. The enthusiasm which the doctrines ofMohammed had kindled, cannot easily be explained; but it was fresh, impetuous, and self-sacrificing. Successive armies of Mohammedaninvaders overwhelmed the ancient realms of civilization, and reducedthe people whom they conquered and converted to a despotic yoke. Butsuccess enervated the victorious conquerors of the East, the empire ofthe Caliphs was broken up, and great changes took place even in thoselands where the doctrines of the Koran prevailed. Mohammed perpetuateda religion, but not an empire. Different Saracenic chieftains revoltedfrom the "Father of the Faithful, " and established separate kingdoms, or viceroyalties, nearly independent of the acknowledged successors ofMohammed. The Saracenic empire was early dismembered, and the sultansof Egypt, Spain, and Syria contested for preëminence. 

[Sidenote: Rise of the Turks. ]

But a new power arose on the ruins of the Saracen empire, and becamethe enthusiastic defenders of the religion of Islam. The Turks were anobscure tribe of barbarians when Bagdad was the seat of a powerfulmonarchy. Their origin has been traced to the wilds of Scythia; butthey early deserted their native forests in search of more fruitfulregions. When Apulia and Sicily were subdued by the Norman pirates, aswarm of these Scythian shepherds settled in Armenia, probably in theninth century, and, by their valor and simplicity, soon became apowerful tribe. Not long after they were settled in their new abode, the Sultan of Persia invoked their aid to assist him in his warsagainst the Caliph of Bagdad, his great rival. The Turks complied withhis request, and their arms were successful. The sultan then refusedto part with such useful auxiliaries, and moreover, fearing theirstrength, designed to employ them in his wars against the Hindoos, andto shut them up in the centre of his dominions. The Turkmans rebelled, withdrew into a mountainous part of the country, became robbers, anddevastated the adjacent countries. The band of robbers graduallyswelled into a powerful army, gained a great victory over the troopsof the Sultan Mohammed, and placed their chieftain upon the Persianthrone, (1038. ) According to Gibbon, the new monarch was chosen bylot, and Seljuk had the fortune to win the prize of conquest, andbecame the founder of the dynasty of the Shepherd kings. During thereign of his grandson Togrul, the ancient Persian princes wereexpelled, and the Turks embraced the religion of the conquered. In1055, the Turkish sultan delivered the Caliph of Bagdad from the armsof the Caliph of Egypt, who disputed with him the title of _Commanderof the Faithful_. For this service he was magnificently rewarded bythe grateful successor of the Prophet, who, at that time, banqueted inhis palace at Bagdad--a venerable phantom of power. The victorioussultan was publicly commissioned as lieutenant of the caliph, and hewas virtually seated on the throne of the Abbassides. Shortly after, the Turkish conqueror invaded the falling empire of the Greeks, andits Asiatic provinces were irretrievably lost. In the latter part ofthe eleventh century, the Turkish power was established in Asia Minor, and Jerusalem itself had fallen into the hands of the sultan. Heexacted two pieces of gold from the Christian pilgrim, and treatedhim, moreover, with greater cruelty than the Saracens had everexercised. The extortion and oppression of the Turkish masters of theSacred City led to the Crusades and the final possession of WesternAsia by the followers of the Prophet. The Turkish power constantlyincreased with the decline of the Saracenic and Greek empires, but theSeljukian dynasty, like that of Abbassides at Bagdad, at last run out, and Othman, a soldier of fortune, became sultan of the Turks. He isregarded as the founder of the Ottoman empire, and under his reign, from 1299 to 1326, the Moslems made rapid strides in the progress ofaggrandizement. 

[Sidenote: Turkish Conquerors. ]

Orkham, his son, instituted the force of the Janizaries, completed theconquest of Bithynia, and laid the foundation of Turkish power inEurope. Under his successor, Amurath I. , Adrianople became the capitalof the Ottoman empire, and the rival of Constantinople. Bajazetsucceeded Amurath, and his conquests extended from the Euphrates tothe Danube. In 1396, he defeated, at Nicopolis, a confederate army ofone hundred thousand Christians; and, in the intoxication of victory, declared that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on thealtar of St. Peter, at Rome. Had it not been for the victories ofTamerlane, Constantinople, which contained within its walls the feeblefragments of a great empire, would also have fallen into his hands. Hewas unsuccessful in his war with the great conqueror of Asia, and wasdefeated at the battle of Angora, (1402, ) and taken captive, andcarried to Samarcand, by Tamerlane, in an iron cage. 

The great Bajazet died in captivity, and Mohammed I. Succeeded to histhrone. He restored, on a firmer basis, the fabric of the Ottomanmonarchy, and devoted himself to the arts of peace. His successor, Amurath II. , continued hostilities with the Greeks, and laid siege toConstantinople. But this magnificent city, the last monument of Romangreatness, resisted the Turkish arms only for a while. In 1453, itfell before an irresistible force of three hundred thousand men, supported by a fleet of three hundred sail. The Emperor Constantinesucceeded in maintaining a siege of fifty-three days; and the religionand empire of the Christians were trodden to the dust by the Moslemconquerors. The city was sacked, the people were enslaved, and theChurch of St. Sophia was despoiled of the oblations of ages, andconverted into a Mohammedan mosque. One hundred and twenty thousandmanuscripts perished in the sack of Constantinople, and the palacesand treasure of the Greeks were transferred to semi-barbarians. 

[Sidenote: Progress of the Turks. ]

From that time, the Byzantine capital became the seat of the Ottomanempire; and, for more than two centuries, Turkish armies excited thefears and disturbed the peace of the world. They gradually subdued andannexed Macedonia, the Peloponnesus, Epirus, Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, Armenia, Cyprus, Syria, Egypt, India, Tunis, Algiers, Media, Mesopotamia, and a part of Hungary, to the dominions of the sultan. Inthe sixteenth century, the Ottoman empire was the most powerful in theworld. Nor should we be surprised, in view of the great success of theTurks, when we remember their singular bravery, their absorbingambition, their almost incredible obedience to the commands of thesultan, and the unity which pervaded the national councils. They alsofought to extend their religion, to which they were blind devotees. After the capture of Constantinople, a succession of great princes saton the most absolute throne known in modern times; men disgraced bymany crimes, but still singularly adapted to extend their dominion. 

The progress of the Turks justly alarmed the Emperor Charles V. , andhe exerted all his energies to unite the German princes against them, but unsuccessfully. The Sultan Solyman, called the _Magnificent_, maintained his supremacy over Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, ravaged Hungary, wrested Rhodes from the Knights of St. John, conquered the whole of Arabia, and attacked the Portuguese dominion inIndia. He raised the Turkish empire to the highest pitch of itsgreatness, and died while besieging Sigeth, as he was completing theconquest of Hungary. His empire was one vast camp, and his decreeswere dated from the imperial stirrup. The iron sceptre which he andhis successors wielded was imbrued in blood; and discipline alone wasthe politics of his soldiers, and rapine their resources. 

Selim II. Succeeded Solyman, and set the ruinous example of not goinghimself to the wars, and of carrying them on by his lieutenants. Hisson, Murad III. , penetrated into Russia and Poland, and made war onthe Emperor of Germany. Mohammed III. , who died in 1604, murdered allhis brothers, nineteen in number, and executed his own son. It wasusual, when an emperor mounted the throne, for him to put to death hisbrothers and nephews. Indeed, the characters of the sultans weremarked by unusual ferocity and jealousy, and they were unscrupulous inthe means they took to advance their power. The world has never seenmore suspicious tyrants; and it ever must excite our wonder that theywere so unhesitatingly obeyed. But they were, however, sometimesdethroned by the Janizaries, who constituted a sort of imperial guard. Osman II. , fearing their power, and disgusted with their degeneracy, resolved to destroy them, as dangerous to the state. But his designwas discovered, and he himself lost his life, (1622. ) Several monstersof tyranny and iniquity succeeded him, whose reigns were disgraced byevery excess of debauchery and cruelty. Their subjects, however, hadnot, as yet, lost vigor, temperance, and ambition, and still continuedto furnish troops unexampled for discipline and bravery, and bent onconquest and dominion. 

The Turkish power received no great checks until the reign ofMohammed IV. , during which Sobieski defeated an immense army, whichhad laid siege to Vienna. By the peace of Carlovitz, in 1699, Transylvania was ceded to the Emperor of Germany, and a barrier wasraised against Mohammedan invasion. 

The Russians, from the time of Peter the Great, looked with greatjealousy on the power of the sultan, and several wars were the result. No Russian sovereign desired the humiliation of the Porte more thanCatharine II. A bloody contest ensued, signalized by the victories ofGalitzin, Suwarrow, Romanzoff, and Orloff, by which Turkey became asecond class power, no longer feared by the European states. 

[Sidenote: Decline of Turkish Power. ]

From the peace of Carlovitz, the decline of the Ottoman empire hasbeen gradual, but marked, owing to the indifference of the Turks toall modern improvements, and a sluggish, conservative policy, hostileto progress, and sceptical of civilization. The Turks have ever beenbigoted Mohammedans, and hostile to European influences. The Orientaldress has been preserved in Constantinople, and all the manners andcustoms of the people are similar to what they were in Asia severalcenturies ago. 

[Sidenote: Turkish Institutions. ]

One of the peculiarities of the Turkish government, in the mostflourishing period of its history, was the institution of theJanizaries--a guard of soldiers, to whom was intrusted theguardianship of the sultan, and the protection of his capital. Whenwarlike and able princes were seated on the throne, this institutionproved a great support to the government; but when the reins were heldby effeminate princes, the Janizaries, like the Prætorian Guards ofRome, acquired an undue ascendency, and even deposed the monarchs whomthey were bound to obey. They were insolent, extortionate, andextravagant, and became a great burden to the state. At first theywere brave and resolute; but they gradually lost their skill and theircourage, were uniformly beaten in the later wars with the Russians, and retained nothing of the soldier but the name. Mahmoud II. , in ourown time, succeeded in dissolving this dangerous body, and inintroducing European tactics into his army. 

[Sidenote: Turkish Character. ]

The Turkish institutions have reference chiefly to the militarycharacter of the nation. All Mussulmans, in the eye of the law, aresoldiers, to whom the extension of the empire and the propagation oftheir faith were the avowed objects of warfare. They may be regarded, wherever they have conquered, as military colonists, exercising greattyranny, and treating all vanquished subjects with contempt. Thegovernment has ever been a pure despotism, and both the executive andlegislative authorities have been vested in the sultan. He is the solefountain of honor; for, in Turkey, birth confers no privilege. Hisactions are regarded as prescribed by an inevitable fate, and hissubjects suffer with resignation. The evils of despotism areaggravated by the ignorance and effeminacy of those to whom power isintrusted, although the grand vizier, who is the prime minister of theempire, is generally a man of great experience and talent. All thelaws of the country are founded upon the precepts of the Koran, theexample of Mohammed, the precepts of the four first caliphs, and thedecision of learned doctors upon disputed cases. Justice isadministered promptly, but without much regard to equity or mercy; andthe course of the grand vizier is generally marked with blood. Thecharacter of the people partakes of the nature of their government, religion, and climate. They are arrogant, ignorant, and austere;passing from devotion to obscenity; fastidiously abstemious in somethings, and grossly sensual in others. They have cherished the virtuesof hospitality, and are fond of conversation but their domestic lifeis spent in voluptuous idleness, and is dull and insipid compared withthat of Europeans. But the Turks have degenerated. In the fifteenthand sixteenth centuries, they were simple, brave, and religious. Theyfounded an immense empire on the ruins of Asiatic monarchies, andfilled the world with the terror of their arms. For two hundred yearstheir power has been retrograding, and there is much reason now tobelieve that a total eclipse of their glory is soon to take place. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --See Knolle's History of Turkey. Eton's Survey of the Turkish Empire. Upham's History of the Ottoman Empire. Encyclopædia Britannica. Heeren's Modern History. Madden's Travels in Turkey. Russell's Modern Europe. Life of Catharine II. 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

REIGN OF GEORGE III. TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF WILLIAM PITT. 

Great subjects were discussed in England, and great events happened inAmerica, during the latter years of the reigns of Frederic II. , Catharine II. , and Maria Theresa. These now demand attention. 

[Sidenote: Military Successes in America. ]

George III. Ascended the throne of Great Britain at a period ofunparalleled prosperity, when the English arms were victorious in allparts of the world, and when commerce and the arts had greatlyenriched his country and strengthened its political importance. By thepeace of Paris, (1763, ) the dominions of George III. Were enlarged, and the country over which he reigned was the most powerful in Europe. 

Mr. George Grenville succeeded the Earl of Bute as the prime ministerof the king, and he was chiefly assisted by the Earls of Egremont andHalifax. His administration was signalized by the prosecution ofWilkes, and by schemes for the taxation of the American colonies. 

Mr. Wilkes was a member of parliament, but a man of ruined fortunesand profligate morals. As his circumstances were desperate, he appliedto the ministry for some post of emolument; but his application wasrejected. Failure enraged him, and he swore revenge, and resolved tolibel the ministers, under the pretext of exercising the liberty ofthe press. He was editor of the North Briton, a periodical publicationof some talent, but more bitterness. In the forty-fifth number, heassailed the king, charging him with a direct falsehood. The chargeshould have been dismissed with contempt; for it was against thedignity of the government to refute an infamous slander. But, in anevil hour, it was thought expedient to vindicate the honor of thesovereign; and a warrant was therefore issued against the editor, publisher, and printer of the publication. The officers of the lawentered Wilkes's house late one evening, seized his papers, andcommitted him to the Tower. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus, inconsequence of which he was brought up to Westminster Hall. Being amember of parliament, and a man of considerable abilities andinfluence, his case attracted attention. The judges decided that hisarrest was illegal, since a member of parliament could not beimprisoned except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. He hadnot committed any of these crimes, for a libel had only a _tendency_to disturb the peace. Still, had he been a private person, hisimprisonment would have been legal; but being unconstitutional, he wasdischarged. Lord Chief Justice Pratt gained great popularity by hischarge in favor of the liberation of Wilkes, and ever nobly defendedconstitutional liberty. He is better known as Lord Camden, the ablelord chancellor and statesman during a succeeding administration, andone of the greatest lawyers England has produced, ranking with LordHardwicke, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Eldon. 

[Sidenote: Prosecution of Wilkes. ]

After the discharge of Wilkes, the attorney-general was then orderedto commence a state prosecution, and he was arraigned at the bar ofthe House of Commons. It was voted, by a great majority, that theforty-fifth number of the North Briton was a scandalous and seditiouslibel, and tending to excite traitorous insurrections. It was furthervoted that the paper should be burned by the common hangman. Wilkesthen complained to the House of a breach of privilege, whichcomplaint, being regular, was considered. But the Commons decided thatthe privilege of parliament does not extend to a libel, whichresolution was against the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, andthe precedents upon record in their own journals. However scandalousand vulgar the vituperation of Wilkes, and especially disgraceful in amember of parliament, still his prosecution was an attack on theconstitution. Wilkes was arrested on what is called a _generalwarrant_, which, if often resorted to, would be fatal to the libertiesof the people. Many, who strongly disliked the libeller, stilldefended him in this instance, among whom were Pitt, Beckford, Legge, Yorke, and Sir George Saville. But party spirit and detestation ofWilkes triumphed over the constitution, and the liberties of membersof parliament were abridged even by themselves. But Wilkes was notdiscouraged, and immediately brought an action, in Westminster Hall, against the Earl of Halifax, the secretary of state, for seizing hispapers, and, after a hearing of fifteen hours, before Lord ChiefJustice Pratt and a special jury, obtained a verdict in his favor ofone thousand pounds damages and costs. 

While the Commons were prosecuting Wilkes for a libel, the Lords alsocontinued the prosecution. Wilkes, in conjunction with Potter, adissipated son of Archbishop Potter, during some of their bacchanalianrevels, had written a blasphemous and obscene poem, after the model ofPope's Essay on Man, called _An Essay on Woman_. The satire was notpublished, but a few copies of it were printed privately for theauthors. Lord Sandwich had contrived to secure a copy of it, and readit before the House; and the Lords, indignant and disgusted, voted anaddress to the king to institute a prosecution against the author. TheLords, by so doing, departed from the dignity of their order, andtheir ordinary functions, and their persecution served to strengthen, instead of weaken, the cause of Wilkes. 

[Sidenote: Churchill. ]

Associated with him, in his writings and his revels, was the poetChurchill, a clergyman of the Establishment, but as open a contemnerof decency as Wilkes himself. For some years, his poetry had proved asbad as his sermons, his time being spent in low dissipation. Anill-natured criticism on his writings called forth his energies, andhe started, all at once, a giant in numbers, with all the fire ofDryden and all the harmony of Pope. Imagination, wit, strength, andsense, were crowded into his compositions; but he was careless of bothmatter and manner, and wrote just what came in his way. "Thisbacchanalian priest, " says Horace Walpole, "now mouthing patriotism, and now venting libertinism, the scourge of bad men, and scarce betterthan the worst, debauching wives, and protecting his gown by theweight of his fist, engaged with Wilkes in his war on the Scots, andset himself up as the Hercules that was to cleanse the state andpunish its oppressors. And true it is, the storm that saved us wasraised in taverns and night-cellars; so much more effectual were theorgies of Churchill and Wilkes than the dagger of Cato and Brutus. Earl Temple joined them in mischief and dissipation, and whisperedwhere they might find torches, though he took care never to be seen tolight one himself. This triumvirate has even made me reflect thatnations are most commonly saved by the worst men in them. The virtuousare too scrupulous to go the lengths which are necessary to rouse thepeople against their tyrants. "

[Sidenote: Grafton's Administration. ]

The ferment created by the prosecution of Wilkes led to theresignation of Mr. Grenville, in 1765, and the Marquis of Rockinghamsucceeded him as head of the administration. He continued, however, the prosecution. He retained his place but a few months, and wassucceeded by the Duke of Grafton, the object of such virulentinvective in the Letters of Junius, a work without elevation ofsentiment, without any appeal to generous principle, withoutrecognition of the eternal laws of justice, and without truthfulness, and yet a work which produced a great sensation, and is to this dayregarded as a masterpiece of savage and unscrupulous sarcasm. The Dukeof Grafton had the same views as his predecessor respecting Wilkes, who had the audacity, notwithstanding the sentence of outlawry whichhad been passed against him, to return from Paris, to which he had, for a time, retired, and to appear publicly at Guildhall, and offerhimself as a candidate for the city of London. He was contemptuouslyrejected, but succeeded in being elected as member for Middlesexcounty. 

Mr. Wilkes, however, recognizing the outlawry that had been passedagainst him, surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the Court ofthe King's Bench, which was then presided over by Lord Mansfield. Thisgreat lawyer and jurist confirmed the verdicts against him, andsentenced him to pay a fine of one thousand pounds, to suffer twoyears' imprisonment, and to find security for good behavior for sevenyears. This sentence was odious and severe, and the more unjustifiablein view of the arbitrary and unprecedented alteration of the recordson the very night preceding the trial. 

[Sidenote: Popularity of Wilkes. ]

The multitude, enraged, rescued their idol from the officers of thelaw, as they were conducting him to prison, and carried him withtriumph through the city; but, through his entreaties, they wereprevailed upon to abstain from further acts of outrage. Mr. Wilkesagain surrendered himself, and was confined in prison. When theCommons met, Wilkes was again expelled, in order to satisfy thevengeance of the court. But the electors of Middlesex again returnedhim to parliament, and the Commons voted that, being once expelled, hewas incapable of sitting, even if elected, in the same parliament. Theelectors of Middlesex, equally determined with the Commons, chose him, for a third time, their representative; and the election, for thethird time, was declared void by the commons. In order to terminatethe contest, Colonel Lutterell, a member of the House, vacated hisseat, and offered himself a candidate for Middlesex. He received twohundred and ninety-six votes, and Wilkes twelve hundred andforty-three, but Lutterell was declared duly elected by the Commons, and took his seat for Middlesex. 

This decision threw the whole nation into a ferment, and was plainlyan outrage on the freedom of elections; and it was so considered bysome of the most eminent men in England, even by those who despisedthe character of Wilkes. Lord Chatham, from his seat, declared "thatthe laws were despised, trampled upon, destroyed; those laws which hadbeen made by the stern virtues of our ancestors, those iron barons ofold, to whose spirit in the hour of contest, and to whose fortitude inthe triumph of victory, the silken barons of this day owe all theirhonors and security. "

Mr. Wilkes subsequently triumphed; the Commons grew weary of a contestwhich brought no advantage and much ignominy, and the prosecution wasdropped; but not until the subject of it had been made Lord Mayor ofLondon. From 1768 to 1772, he was the sole unrivalled political idolof the people, who lavished on him all in their power to bestow. Theysubscribed twenty thousand pounds for the payment of his debts, besides gifts of plate, wine, and household goods. Every wall bore hisname and every window his picture. In china, bronze, or marble, hestood upon the chimney-pieces of half the houses in London, and heswung from the sign-board of every village, and every great road inthe environs of the metropolis. In 1770 he was discharged from hisimprisonment, in 1771 was permitted to take his seat, and electedmayor. From 1776, his popularity declined, and he became involved inpecuniary difficulties. He, however, emerged from them, and enjoyed aquiet office until his death (1797. ) He was a patriot from accident, and not from principle, and corrupt in his morals; but he was agentleman of elegant manners and cultivated taste. He was the mostpopular political character ever known in England; and his name, atone time, was sufficient to blow up the flames of sedition, and excitethe lower orders to acts of violence bordering on madness. 

[Sidenote: Taxation of the Colonies. ]

During his prosecution, important events occurred, of greater momentto the world. The disputes about the taxation of America led to theestablishment of a new republic, whose extent and grandeur have neverbeen equalled, and whose future greatness cannot well be exaggerated. 

These disputes commenced during the administration of GeorgeGrenville. The proposal to tax the American colonies had been beforeproposed to Sir Robert Walpole, but this prudent and sagaciousminister dared not run the risk. Mr. Grenville was not, however, daunted by the difficulties and dangers which the more able Walpoleregarded. In order to lighten the burden which resulted from theruinous wars of Pitt, the minister proposed to raise a revenue fromthe colonies. The project pleased the house, and the Stamp Duties wereimposed. It is true that the tax was a light one, and was so regardedby Mr. Grenville; but he intended it as a precedent; he was resolvedto raise a revenue from the colonies sufficiently great to lighten thepublic burden. He regarded the colonists as subjects of the King ofGreat Britain, in every sense of the word; and, since they receivedprotection from the government, they were bound to contribute to itssupport. 

[Sidenote: Indignation of the Colonies. ]

But the colonists, now scattered along the coast from Maine toGeorgia, took other views. They maintained that, though subject insome degree to English legislation, they could not be taxed, any morethan other subjects of Great Britain, without their consent. They werewilling to be ruled in accordance with those royal charters which had, at different times, been given them. They were even willing to assistthe mother country, which they loved and revered, and with which wereconnected their brightest and most cherished associations, inexpelling its enemies from adjoining territories, and to fight battlesin its defence. They were willing to receive the literature, thereligion, the fashions, and the opinions of their brethren in England. But they looked upon the soil which they cultivated in the wildernesswith so many difficulties, hardships, and dangers, as their own, andbelieved that they were bound to raise taxes only to defend the soil, and promote good government, religion, and morality in their midst. But they could not understand why they were bound to pay taxes tosupport English wars on the continent of Europe. It was for theirchildren, and for the sacred privilege of religious liberty, that theyhad originally left the mother country. It was only for themselves andtheir children that they felt bound to labor. They sought no politicalinfluence in England. They did not wish to control elections, orregulate the finances, or interfere with the projects of militaryaggrandizement. They were not represented in the English parliament, and they composed, politically speaking, no part of the Englishnation. Great, therefore, was their indignation, when they learnedthat the English government was interfering with their charteredrights, and designed to raise a revenue from them to lighten taxes athome, merely to support the government in foolish wars. If they couldbe taxed, without their consent, in any thing, they could be taxedwithout limit; and they would be in danger of becoming mere slaves ofthe mother country, and be bound to labor for English aggrandizement. On one point they insisted with peculiar earnestness--that taxation, in a free country, without a representation of interests inparliament, was an outrage. It was on account of this arbitrarytaxation that Charles I. Lost his crown, and the second revolution waseffected, which placed the house of Hanover on the throne. Thecolonies felt that, if the subjects of the king at home were justifiedin resisting unlawful taxes, they surely, on another continent, andwithout a representation, had a right to do so also; that, if theywere to be taxed without their consent, they would be in a worsecondition than even the people of Ireland; would be in the conditionof a conquered people, without the protection which even a conqueredcountry enjoyed. Hence they remonstrated, and prepared themselves forresistance. 

[Sidenote: The Stamp Act. ]

The English government was so blinded as not to perceive or feel theforce of the reasoning of the colonists, and obstinately resolved toresort to measures which, with a free and spirited people, mustnecessarily lead to violence and strife. The House of Commons wouldnot even hear the reports of the colonial agents, but proceeded, withstrange infatuation and obstinate bigotry, to impose the Stamp Act, (1765. ) There were some, however, who perceived its folly andinjustice. General Conway protested against the assumed right of thegovernment, and Colonel Barré, a speaker of great eminence, exclaimed, in reply to the speech of Charles Townshend, who styled the colonies"children planted by our care, and nourished by our indulgence, "--"Theyplanted by your care!--No! your oppressions planted them in America;they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated wilderness, exposedto all the hardships to which human nature is liable! They nourishedby your indulgence!--No! they grew by your neglect; your _care_ ofthem was displayed in sending persons to govern them who were thedeputies of deputies of ministers--men whose behavior, on manyoccasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoilwithin them; men who have been promoted to the highest seats ofjustice in a foreign country, in order to escape being brought to thebar of a court of justice in their own. " Mr. Pitt opposed the fatalpolicy of Grenville with singular eloquence; by arguments which wentbeyond acts of parliament; by an appeal to the natural reason; and byrecognition of the great, inalienable principles of liberty. Hemaintained that the House had _no right_ to lay an internal tax uponAmerica, _that country not being represented_. Burke, too, then a newspeaker, raised his voice against the folly and injustice of taxingthe colonies; but it was in vain. The commons were bent on imposingthe Stamp Act. 

But the passage of this act created great disturbances in America, andwas every where regarded as the beginning of great calamities. Throughout the colonies there was a general combination to resist thestamp duty; and it was resolved to purchase no English manufactures, and to prevent the adoption of stamped paper. 

Such violent and unexpected opposition embarrassed the Englishministry; which, in addition to the difficulties attending theprosecution of Wilkes, led to the retirement of Grenville, who wassucceeded by the Marquis of Rockingham. During his shortadministration, the Stamp Act was repealed, although the Commons stillinsisted on their right to tax America. The joy which this repealcreated in the colonies was unbounded; and the speech of Pitt, whoproposed the repeal, and defended it with unprecedented eloquence, wasevery where read with enthusiasm, and served to strengthen theconviction, among the leading men in the colonies, that their causewas right. Lord Rockingham did not long remain at the head of thegovernment, and was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton; although Mr. Pitt, recently created Earl of Chatham, was virtually the primeminister. Lord Rockingham retired from office with a high characterfor pure and disinterested patriotism, and without securing place, pension, or reversion, to himself or to any of his adherents. 

[Sidenote: Lord Chatham. ]

The elevation of Lord Chatham to the peerage destroyed his popularityand weakened his power. No man ever made a greater mistake than he didin consenting to an apparent elevation. He had long been known anddesignated as the _Great Commoner_. The people were proud of him and, as a commoner, he could have ruled the nation, in spite of allopposition. No other man could have averted the national calamities. But, as a peer, he no longer belonged to the people, and the peoplelost confidence in him, and abandoned him. What he gained in dignityhe lost in power and popularity. The people now compared him with LordBath, and he became the object of universal calumny. 

And Chatham felt the change which had taken place in the nation. Hehad ever loved and courted popularity, and that was the source of hispower. He now lost his spirits, and interested himself but little inpublic affairs. He relapsed into a state of indolence and apathy. Heremained only the shadow of a mighty name; and, sequestered in thegroves of his family residence, ceased to be mentioned by the public. He became melancholy, nervous, and unfit for business. Nor could he beinduced to attend a cabinet council, even on the most pressingoccasions. He pretended to be ill, and would not hold conference withhis colleagues. Nor did he have the influence with the king which hehad a right to expect. Being no longer beloved by the people, he wasno longer feared by the king. He was like Samson when deprived of hislocks--without strength; for his strength lay in the confidence andaffections of the nation. He opposed his colleagues in theirresolution to impose new taxes on America, but his counsels weredisregarded. 

These taxes were in the shape of duties on glass, paper, lead, andpainters' colors, from which no considerable revenue could be gained, and much discontent would inevitably result. When the news of this newtaxation reached the colonies, it destroyed all the cheerfulness whichthe repeal of the Stamp Act had caused. Sullenness and gloom returned. Trust in parliament was diminished. New combinations of oppositionwere organized, and the newspapers teemed with invective. 

In the midst of these disturbances, Lord Chatham resigned the PrivySeal, the office he had selected, and retired from the administration, (1768. )

[Sidenote: Administration of Lord North. ]

In 1770, the Duke of Grafton also resigned his office as first lord ofthe treasury, chiefly in consequence of the increasing difficultieswith America; and Lord North, who had been two years chancellor of theexchequer, took his place. He was an amiable and accomplishednobleman, and had many personal friends, and few personal enemies; buthe was unfit to manage the helm of state in the approaching storm. 

It was his misfortune to be minister in the most unsettled andrevolutionary times, and to misunderstand not merely the spirit of theage, but the character and circumstances of the American colonies. George III. , with singular obstinacy and blindness, sustained theminister against all opposition; and under his administration theAmerican war was carried on, which ended so disastrously to the mothercountry. 

As this great and eventful war will be the subject of the nextchapter, the remaining events of interest, connected with the domestichistory of England, will be first presented. 

The most important of these were the discontents of the Irish. 

As early as 1762, associations of the peasantry were formed with aview to political reforms and changes, and these populardemonstrations of the discontented have ever since marked the historyof the Irish nation--ever poor, ever oppressed, ever on the eve ofrebellion. 

[Sidenote: Functions of the Parliament. ]

The first circumstance, however, after the accession of George III. , which claims particular notice, was the passing of the Octennial Bill, in 1788. The Irish parliament, unlike the English, continued inexistence during the life of the sovereign. In 1761, an attempt hadbeen made by the patriotic party to limit its duration, and to placeit upon the same footing as the parliament of England; but this didnot succeed. Lord Townshend, at this period, was lord lieutenant, andit was the great object of his government to break the power of theIrish aristocracy, and to take out of their hands the distribution ofpensions and places, which hitherto had, from motives of policy, beenallowed them. He succeeded in his object, though by unjustifiablemeans, and the British government became the source of all honor andemolument. During his administration, some disturbances broke out inUlster, in consequence of the system which then prevailed of lettingland on fines. As a great majority of the peasantry and small farmerswere unable to pay these fines, and were consequently deprived oftheir farms, they became desperate, and committed violent outrages onthose who had taken their lands. Government was obliged to resort tomilitary force, and many distressed people were driven to America forsubsistence. To Ireland there appeared no chance of breaking thethraldom which England in other respects also exercised, when theAmerican war broke out. This immediately changed the language andcurrent of the British government in reference to Ireland; proposalswere made favorable to Irish commerce; and some penal statutes againstCatholics were annulled. Still the patriots of Ireland aimed at muchgreater privileges than had as yet been granted, and the means tosecure these were apparent. England had drawn from Ireland nearly allthe regular forces, in order to send them to America, and thesea-coast of Ireland was exposed to invasion. In consequence of thedefenceless state of the country, the inhabitants of the town ofBelfast, in 1779, entered into armed associations to defend themselvesin case of necessity. This gave rise to a system of volunteers, whichsoon was extended over the island. The Irish now began to feel theirstrength; and even Lord North admitted, in the House of Commons, thenecessity of granting to them still greater privileges, and carried abill through parliament, which removed some grievous commercialrestrictions. But the Irish looked to greater objects, and especiallysince Lord North, in order to carry his bill, represented it as a boonresumable at pleasure, rather than as a right to which the Irish wereproperly entitled. This bill, therefore, instead of quieting thepatriots, led to a desire for an independent parliament of their own. A union was formed of volunteers to secure this end, not composed ofthe ignorant peasantry, but of all classes, at the head of which wasthe Duke of Leinster himself. In 1781, this association of volunteershad a force of fifty thousand disciplined men; and it moreover formedcommittees of correspondence, which naturally alarmed the Britishgovernment. 

These and other disturbances, added to the disasters in America, induced the House of Commons to pass censure on Lord North and hiscolleague, as incapable of managing the helm of state. The king, therefore, was compelled to dismiss his ministers, whoseadministration had proved the most disastrous in British annals. LordNorth, however, had uncommon difficulties to contend with, and mighthave governed the nation with honor in ordinary times. He resigned in1782, four years after the death of Chatham, and the Marquis ofBuckingham, a second time, was placed at the head of the government. Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke also obtained places, and the Whigs were oncemore triumphant. 

[Sidenote: Irish Discontents. ]

The attention of the new ministry was imperatively demanded by thediscontents in Ireland, and important concessions were made. Mr. Grattan moved an address to the king, which was unanimously carried inboth Houses, in which it was declared that "the crown of Ireland wasinseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain; but that thekingdom of Ireland was a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of herown, the sole legislature thereof; that in this right they conceivedthe very essence of their liberty to exist; that in behalf of all thepeople of Ireland, they claimed this as their birthright, and couldnot relinquish it but with their lives; that they had a highveneration for the British character; and that, in sharing the freedomof England, it was their determination to share also her fate, and tostand and fall with the British nation. " The new lord lieutenant, theDuke of Portland, assured the Irish parliament that the Britishlegislature had resolved to remove the cause of discontent, and a lawwas actually passed which placed the Irish parliament on the samefooting as that of England. Acts were also passed for the right ofhabeas corpus, and for the independence of the judges. 

The volunteers, having accomplished the objects which they originallycontemplated, did not, however, disband, but now directed theirefforts to a reform in parliament. But the House of Commons rejectedthe proposition offered by Mr. Flood, and the convention, appointed bythe volunteers, indefinitely adjourned without persevering, as itshould have done. The volunteer system soon after declined. 

The cause of parliamentary reform, though no longer supported by thevolunteers in their associate character, was not deserted by thepeople, or by their advocates in parliament. Among these advocates wasWilliam Pitt himself. But in 1783, he became prime minister, andchanged his opinions. 

[Sidenote: Protestant Association. ]

But before the administration of Pitt can be presented, an event inthe domestic history of England must be alluded to, which took placeduring the administration of Lord North. This was the ProtestantAssociation, headed by Lord George Gordon, and the riots to which itled. 

[Sidenote: Lord George Gordon's Riots. ]

In 1780, parliament had passed an act relieving Roman Catholics fromsome of the heavy penalties inflicted on them in the precedingcentury. It relieved bishops, priests, and schoolmasters fromprosecution and imprisonment, gave security to the rights ofinheritance, and permission to purchase lands on fee simple. This actof toleration was generally opposed in England; but the fanaticalspirit of Presbyterianism in Scotland was excited in view of thisreasonable indulgence, to a large body of men, of the rights ofconscience and civil liberty. On the bare rumor of the intendedindulgence, great tumults took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow; theRoman Catholic chapel was destroyed, and the houses of the principalCatholics were attacked and plundered. Nor did the magistracy check orpunish these disorders with any spirit, but secretly favored therioters. Encouraged by the indifference of the magistrates, thefanatics formed themselves into a society called the _ProtestantAssociation_, to oppose any remission of the present unjust laws; andof this association Lord George Gordon was chosen president. He wasthe son of the Duke of Gordon, belonging to one of the most ancient ofthe Scottish nobility, but a man in the highest degree wild andfanatical. He was also a member of parliament, and opposed the viewsof the most enlightened statesmen of his time, and with anextravagance which led to the belief that he was insane. Hecalumniated the king, defied the parliament, and boasted of the numberof his adherents. He pretended that he had, in Scotland, one hundredand sixty thousand men at his command, who would cut off the king'shead, if he did not keep his coronation oath. The enthusiasm of theScotch soon spread to the English; and, throughout the country, associations were affiliated with the parent societies in London andEdinburgh, of both of which Lord Gordon was president. At Coachmakers'Hall he assembled his adherents; and, in an incendiary harangue, inflamed the minds of an immense audience in regard to the Church ofRome, with the usual invectives respecting its idolatry andcorruption. He urged them to violent courses, as the only way to stopthe torrent of Catholicism which was desolating the land. Soon after, this association assembled at St. George's Fields, to the astonishingnumber of fifty thousand people, marshalled in separate bands, withblue cockades; and this immense rabble proceeded through the city ofLondon to the House of Parliament, preceded by a man carrying apetition signed by twelve hundred thousand names. The rabble tookpossession of the lobby of the house, making the old palace ring withtheir passionate cries of "No popery! no popery!" This mob washarangued by Lord Gordon himself, in the lobby of the house, while thematter was discussed among the members. The military were drawn out, and the mob was dispersed for a time, but soon assembled again, andbecame still more alarming. Houses were plundered, churches wereentered, and the city set on fire in thirty-six different places. Thepeople were obliged to chalk on their houses "No popery, " and paycontributions to prevent their being sacked. The prisons were emptiedof both felons and debtors. Lord Mansfield's splendid residence wasdestroyed, together with his pictures, furniture, and invaluable lawlibrary. Martial law was finally proclaimed--the last resort in casesof rebellion, and never resorted to but in extreme cases; and themilitary did what magistrates could not do--restored order and law. Had not the city been decreed to be in a state of rebellion, therioters would have taken the bank, which they had already attacked. Five hundred persons were killed in the riot, and Lord George Gordonwas committed to the Tower. He, however, escaped conviction, throughthe extraordinary talents of his counsel, Mr. Erskine and Mr. Kenyon;but one hundred others were capitally convicted. This disgraceful riotopened the eyes of the people to the horrors of popular insurrection, and perhaps prevented a revolution in England, when other questions, of more practical importance, agitated the nation. 

But no reform of importance took place until the administration ofWilliam Pitt. Mr. Burke attempted to secure some economicalretrenchments, which were strongly opposed. But what was aretrenchment of two hundred thousand pounds a year, when compared withthe vast expenditures of the British armies in America and in India?But though the reforms which Burke projected were not radical orimportant, they contributed to raise his popularity with the people, who were more annoyed by the useless offices connected with the king'shousehold, than by the expenditure of millions in war. At first, hisscheme received considerable attention, and the members listened tohis propositions so long as they were abstract and general. But whenhe proceeded to specific reforms, they no longer regarded his voice, and he was obliged to abandon his task as hopeless. William Pitt madehis first speech in the debate which Burke had excited, and argued infavor of retrenchment with the eloquence of his father, but with moremethod and clearness. The bill was lost, but Burke finally succeededin carrying his measures; and the offices of the master of theharriers, the master of the staghounds, the clerk of the green cloth, and some other unimportant sinecures, were abolished. 

[Sidenote: Parliamentary Reforms. ]

[Sidenote: Reform Questions. ]

The first attempt at that great representative reform which afterwardsconvulsed the nation, was made by William Pitt. He brought forward tworesolutions, to prevent bribery at elections, and secure a moreequitable representation. But he did not succeed; and Pitt himself, when his cause was advocated by men of a different spirit, --meninflamed by revolutionary principles, --changed his course, and opposedparliamentary reform with more ardor than he had at first advocatedit. But parliamentary reform did not become an object of absorbinginterest until the times of Henry Brougham and Lord John Russell. 

No other great events were sufficiently prominent to be here alludedto, until the ministry of William Pitt. The American Revolution firstdemands attention. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Belsham's History of the Reign of George III. Walpole's Memoir of the same reign. Holt's Private and Domestic Life of George III. Lord Brougham's Statesmen of the Reign of George III. Smyth's Lectures. Thackeray's Life of the Earl of Chatham. Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham. Annual Register, from 1765 to 1775. Debret's Parliamentary Debates. Stephens' Life of Horne Tooke. Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors. Macaulay's Essay on Chatham. Burke's Thoughts on the Present Discontents. 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 

[Sidenote: The American Revolution. ]

The American Revolution, if contemplated in view of its ultimate aswell as immediate consequences, is doubtless the greatest event ofmodern times. Its importance was not fully appreciated when it tookplace, but still excited a great interest throughout the civilizedworld. It was the main subject which engrossed the attention andcalled out the energies of British statesmen, during theadministration of Lord North. In America, of course, all othersubjects were trivial in comparison with it. The contest is memorablefor the struggles of heroes, for the development of unknown energies, for the establishment of a new western empire, for the triumph of thecause of liberty, and for the moral effects which resulted, even inother countries, from the examples of patriots who preferred the gloryand honor of their country to their own aggrandizement. 

The causes of the struggle have been already alluded to in theselfishness and folly of British statesmen, who sought to relieve theburdens of the English people by taxing the colonies. The colonieswere doubtless regarded by the British parliament without properaffection or consideration; somewhat in the light of a conquerednation, from which England might derive mercantile advantage. Thecolonies were not ruled in a spirit of conciliation, nor were theAmerican people fully appreciated. Some, perhaps, like Chatham andBurke, may have known the virtues and the power of the colonialpopulation, and may have had some glimpse of the glory and greatnessto which America was destined. But they composed but a small minorityof the nation, and their advice and remonstrances were generallydisregarded. 

[Sidenote: Causes of the Revolution. ]

Serious disturbances did not take place until Lord North commenced hisunfortunate administration, (1770. ) Although the colonies were thenresolved not to submit to unlawful taxation, and to an oppressivegovernment, independence was not contemplated. Conciliatory measures, if they had been at that time adopted, probably would have deferredthe Revolution. But the contest must have occurred, at a later date;for nothing, in the ordinary course of events, could have preventedthe ultimate independence of the colonies. Their rapid growth, theextent of the country in which settlements were made, its distancefrom England, the spirit of liberty which animated the people, theirgeneral impatience under foreign restraint, and the splendid prospectsof future greatness which were open to their eyes, must have led to arupture with the mother country at no distant time. 

The colonies, at the commencement of their difficulties, may haveexaggerated their means of resistance, but not their future greatness. All of them, from New Hampshire to Georgia, were animated by a spiritof liberty which no misfortunes could crush. A large majority of thepeople were willing to incur the dangers incident to revolution, notfor themselves merely, but for the sake of their posterity, and forthe sacred cause of liberty. They felt that their cause was just, andthat Providence would protect and aid them in their defence. 

A minute detail of the events of the American Revolution, of course, cannot be expected in a history like this. Only the more prominentevents can be alluded to. The student is supposed to be familiar withthe details of the conflict, which are to be read in the works ofnumerous American authors. 

Lord North, at the commencement of his administration, repealed theobnoxious duties which had been imposed in 1767, but still retainedthe duty on tea, with a view chiefly to assert the supremacy of GreatBritain, and her right to tax the colonies. This course of theminister cannot be regarded in any other light than that of theblindest infatuation. 

The imposition of the port duties, by Grenville, had fomentedinnumerable disturbances, and had led to universal discussion as tothe nature and extent of parliamentary power. A distinction, at first, had been admitted between internal and external taxes; but it was soonasserted that Great Britain had no right to tax the colonies, eitherinternally or externally. It was stated that the colonies had receivedcharters, under the great seal, which had given them all the rightsand privileges of Englishmen at home and therefore that they could notbe taxed, except by their own consent; that this consent had neverbeen asked or granted; that they were unrepresented in the imperialparliament; and that the taxes which had been imposed by their ownrespective legislatures were, in many instances, greater than whatwere paid by the people of England--taxes too, incurred, to a greatdegree, to preserve the jurisdiction of Great Britain on the Americancontinent. The colonies were every where exceedingly indignant withthe course the mother country had pursued with reference to them. Patrick Henry, a Virginian, supported the cause of liberty withunrivalled eloquence and power, as did John Adams, Josiah Quincy, Jr. , James Otis, and other patriots in Massachusetts. Riots took place inBoston, Newport, and New York, and assemblies of citizens in variousparts expressed an indignant and revolutionary spirit. 

[Sidenote: Riots and Disturbances. ]

The residence of the military at Boston was, moreover, the occasion ofperpetual tumult. The people abused the soldiers, vilified them innewspapers, and insulted them in the street. Mutual animosity was theresult. Rancor and insults produced riot, and the troops fired uponthe people. So great was the disturbances, that the governor wasreluctantly obliged to remove the military from the town. The GeneralCourt was then removed to Cambridge, but refused to enter uponbusiness unless it were convened in Boston. Fresh disturbancesfollowed. The governor quarrelled with the legislature, and a completeanarchy began to prevail. The public mind was inflamed by effigies, paintings, and incendiary articles in the newspapers. The parliamentwas represented as corrupt, the ministry as venal, the king as atyrant, and England itself as a rotten, old, aristocratic structure, crumbling to pieces. The tide was so overwhelming in favor ofresistance, that even moderate men were borne along in the current;and those who kept aloof from the excitement were stigmatized as timidand selfish, and the enemies of their country. The courts of justicewere virtually silenced, since juries disregarded the charges of thejudges. Libels were unnoticed, and the rioters were unpunished. Smuggling was carried on to a great extent, and revenue officers wereinsulted in the discharge of their duties. Obnoxious persons weretarred and feathered, and exposed to public derision and scorn. InProvidence, they burnt the revenue cutter, and committees were formedin the principal towns who fanned the flame of sedition. The committeein Boston, in 1773, framed a celebrated document, called the _Bill ofRights_, in which the authority of parliament to legislate for thecolonies, in any respect, was denied, and in which the salariesdecreed by the crown to the governor and judges were considered as asystematic attempt to enslave the land. 

The public discontents were further inflamed by the information whichDr. Franklin, then in London, afforded the colonies, and the advice hegave them to persevere, assuring them that, if they were firm, theyhad nothing to apprehend. Moreover, he got into his possession a copyof the letters of Governor Hutchinson to the ministry, which hetransmitted to the colonies, and which by them were made public. Theseletters were considered by the legislature of Massachusetts as unjustand libellous, and his recall was demanded. Resolutions, of anoffensive character to the English, were every where passed, and allthings indicated an approaching storm. The crisis was at hand. Theoutrage, in Boston harbor, of throwing overboard three hundred andforty-two chests of tea, which the East India Company had sent toAmerica, consummated the difficulties, and induced the government toresort to more coercive measures. 

[Sidenote: Duty on Tea. ]

It was in the power of Lord North to terminate the difficulties withthe colonies when the East India Company urged him to repeal the dutyof threepence per pound on tea, and offered to pay sixpence per poundin lieu of it, as export duty, if permitted to import it into thecolonies duty free. The company was induced to make this propositionin view of the great accumulation of tea in England; but thegovernment, more solicitous about the right than the revenue, wouldnot consent. The colonists were equally determined to resist taxation, not on account of immediate burdens, but upon principle, and thereforeresolved to prevent the landing of the tea. A multitude rushed to thewharf, and twenty persons, disguised as Indians, went on board theships laden with it, staved the chests, and threw their contents intothe sea. In New York and Philadelphia, as no persons could be foundwho would venture to receive the tea sent to those ports, the shipsladen with it returned to England. 

[Sidenote: Port of Boston Closed. ]

The ministers of the crown were especially indignant with the provinceof Massachusetts, which had always been foremost in resistance, andthe scene of the greatest disorders, and therefore resolved to blockup the port of Boston. Accordingly, in 1774 they introduced a bill todiscontinue the lading and shipping of goods, wares, and merchandiseat Boston, and to remove the custom-house to Salem. The bill receivedthe general approbation of the House, and passed by a great majority. 

No measure could possibly have been more impolitic. A large forceshould have been immediately sent to the colonies, to coerce them, before they had time to organize sufficient force to resist the mothercountry, or conciliatory measures should have been adopted. But theHouse was angry and infatuated, and the voice of wisdom wasdisregarded. 

Soon after, Lord North introduced another bill for the bettergovernment of the provinces, which went to subvert the charter of thecolony, and to violate all the principles of liberty and justice. Bythis bill, the nomination of counsellors, judges, sheriffs, andmagistrates of all kinds, was vested in the crown; and these were alsoremovable at pleasure. The ministers, in advocating the bill, urgedthe ground of necessity, the universal spirit of disaffection, whichbordered on actual rebellion. The bill was carried, by a majority oftwo hundred and thirty-nine against sixty-four voices, May 2, 1774. 

The next step of the minister was to bring in a bill which providedthat, in case any person was indicted in Massachusetts for a capitaloffence, and that, if it should appear that a fair trial could not behad in the province, the prisoner might be sent to any other colony, or even to Great Britain itself, to be tried. This was insult added toinjury, and met with vigorous resistance even in parliament itself. But it nevertheless passed through both Houses. 

When intelligence arrived concerning it, and of the other bills, afire was kindled in the colonies not easily to be extinguished. Therewas scarcely a place which did not convene its assembly. Popularorators, in the public halls and in the churches, every where inflamedthe people by incendiary discourses; organizations were made toabstain from all commerce with the mother country; and measures wereadopted to assemble a General Congress, to take into consideration thestate of the country. People began to talk of defending their rightsby the sword. Every where was heard the sound of the drum and thefife. All were fired by the spirit of liberty. Associations wereformed for the purchase of arms and ammunition. Addresses were printedand circulated calling on the people to arm themselves, and resistunlawful encroachment. All proceedings in the courts of justice weresuspended. Jurors refused to take their oaths; the reign of lawceased, and that of violence commenced. Governor Gage, who hadsucceeded Hutchinson, fortified Boston Neck, and cut off thecommunication of the town with the country. 

[Sidenote: Meeting of Congress. ]

In the mean time, the Continental Congress met at Philadelphia, inwhich all the colonies were represented but Georgia. Congress passedresolutions approving the course of Massachusetts, and also a billcalled a _Declaration of Rights_. It sent an address to the king, framed with great ability, in which it discussed the rights of thecolonies, complained of the mismanagement of ministers, and besought aredress of the public evils. 

[Sidenote: Speech of Burke. ]

But this congress was considered by the government of Great Britain asan illegal body, and its petition was disregarded. But the ministersno longer regarded the difficulties as trifling, and sought to remedythem, though not in the right way. The more profound of the Englishstatesmen fully perceived the danger and importance of the crisis, andmany of them took the side of liberty. Dean Tucker, who foresaw a longwar, with all its expenses, urged, in a masterly treatise, thenecessity of giving the Americans, at once, the liberty they sought. Others, who overrated the importance of the colonies in a mercantileview, wished to retain them, but to adopt conciliatory measures. LordChatham put forth all the eloquence of which he was such a master, toarouse the ministers. He besought them to withdraw the troops fromBoston. He showed the folly of metaphysical refinements about theright of taxation when a continent was in arms. He spoke of the meansof enforcing thraldom as inefficient and ridiculous. Lord Camdensustained Chatham in the House of Lords, and declared, not as aphilosopher, but as a constitutional lawyer, that England had no rightto tax America. Mr. Burke moved a conciliatory measure in the House ofCommons, fraught with wisdom and knowledge. "My hold of the colonies, "said this great oracle of moral wisdom, "is the close affection whichgrows from the common names, from the kindred blood, from similarprivileges, and from equal protection. These are the ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the coloniesalways keep the idea of their civil rights associated with yourgovernment; they will cling and grapple with you, and no power underheaven will be able to tear them from their allegiance. But let itonce be understood that your government may be one thing, and theirprivileges another, then the cement is gone, and every thing hastensto dissolution. It is the love of the people, it is their attachmentto your government from the sense in the deep stake they have in suchglorious institutions, which gives you your army and navy, and infusesinto both that liberal obedience without which your army would be buta base rabble, and your navy nothing but rotten timber. " But thiselevated and sublime wisdom was regarded as a philosophicalabstraction, as a vain and impractical view of political affairs, wellenough for a writer on the "sublime and beautiful, " but absurd in aBritish statesman. Colonel Barré and Fox supported Burke; but theireloquence had not much effect on the Commons, and the ministry wassupported in their measures. The colonies were declared to be in astate of rebellion, and measures were adopted to crush them. 

To declare the colonies in a state of rebellion was, in fact, todeclare war. And this was perfectly understood by the popular leaderswho fanned the spirit of resistance. All ideas of reconciliation nowbecame chimerical. Necessity stimulated the timid, and vengeanceexcited the bold. It was felt that the people were now to choosebetween liberty and slavery, and slavery was, of course, regarded asworse than death. "We must look back, " said the popular orators, "nomore! We must conquer or die! We are placed between altars smokingwith the most grateful incense of glory and gratitude on the one part, and blocks and dungeons on the other. Let each, then, rise and girdhimself for the conflict. The dearest interests of the world commandit; our most holy religion requires it. Let us banish fear, andremember that fortune smiles only on the brave. "

Such was the general state of feeling; and there only needed a sparkto kindle a conflagration. That spark was kindled at Lexington. General Gage, the governor, having learned that military stores andarms were deposited at Concord, resolved to seize them. His design wassuspected, and the people prepared to resist his orders. The alarmbells were rung, and the cannons were fired. The provincial militiaassembled, and the English retreated to Lexington. That villagewitnessed the commencement of a long and sanguinary war. The tide ofrevolution could no longer be repressed. The colonies were nowresolved to achieve their independence. 

The Continental Congress met on the 10th of May, 1775, shortly afterthe first blood had been shed at Lexington, and immediately proceededto raise an army, establish a paper currency, and to dissolve thecompact between Great Britain and the Massachusetts colony. JohnHancock was chosen president of the assembly, and George Washingtoncommander-in-chief of the continental army. He accepted theappointment with a modesty only equalled by his merit, and soon afterdeparted for the seat of war. For his associates, Congress appointedArtemas Ward, Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler, and Israel Putnam asmajor-generals, and Seth Pomeroy, Richard Montgomery, David Wooster, William Heath, Joseph Spencer, John Thomas, John Sullivan, andNathanael Greene as brigadiers. Horatio Gates received the appointmentof adjutant-general, with the rank of brigadier. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Bunker Hill. ]

On the 17th of June was fought the battle of Bunker Hill, which provedthe bravery of the Americans, and which was followed by great moralresults. But the Americans unfortunately lost, in this battle, Dr. Warren, who had espoused the cause of revolution with the same spiritthat Hampden did in England, and whom he resembled in genius, patriotism, and character. He had been chosen major-general four daysbefore his death, but fought at Bunker Hill as a simple volunteer. Onthe 2d of July, Washington took command of the army, and establishedhis head-quarters at Cambridge. The American army amounted toseventeen thousand men, of whom twenty-five hundred were unfit forduty. They were assembled on the spur of the occasion, and had but fewtents and stores, no clothing, no military chest and no generalorganization. They were collected from the various provinces and weregoverned by their own militia laws. Of this material he constructedthe first continental army, and under innumerable vexations anddifficulties. No man was ever placed in a more embarrassing situation. His troops were raw and undisciplined; and the members of theContinental Congress, from whom he received his commission, were notunited among themselves. He had all the responsibility of the war, andyet had not sufficient means to prosecute it with the vigor which thecolonies probably anticipated. His success, in the end, _was_ gloriousand unequivocal; but none other than he could have secured it, and nothe, even, unless he had been sustained by a loftiness of characteralmost preternatural. 

The English forces, at this time, were centred in Boston under thecommand of General Gage, and were greatly inferior in point of numbersto the American troops who surrounded them. But the troops of Gagewere regulars and veterans, and were among the best in the Englisharmy. He was recalled in order to give information to the governmentin reference to the battle of Bunker Hill, and was succeeded inOctober by General Howe. 

[Sidenote: Death of Montgomery. ]

The first campaign of the war was signalized by the invasion of Canadaby the American troops, with the hope of wresting that province fromthe English, which was not only disaffected, but which was defended byan inconsiderable force. General Montgomery, with an army of threethousand, advanced to Montreal, which surrendered. The fortresses ofCrown Point and Ticonderoga had already been taken by Colonel EthanAllen. But the person who most distinguished himself in thisunfortunate expedition was Colonel Benedict Arnold, who, with adetachment of one thousand men, penetrated through the forests, swamps, and mountains of Maine, beyond the sources of the Kennebecand, in six weeks from his departure at Boston, arrived on the plainsof Canada, opposite Quebec. He there effected a junction with thetroops of Montgomery, and made an assault on the strongest fortress inAmerica, defended by sixteen hundred men. The attack was unsuccessful, and Montgomery was killed. Arnold did not retire from the province, but remained encamped upon the Heights of Abraham. This enterprise, though a failure, was not without great moral results, since it showedto the English government the singular bravery and intrepidity of thenation it had undertaken to coerce. 

The ministry then resolved upon vigorous measures, and, finding adifficulty in raising men, applied to the Landgrave of Hesse forseventeen thousand mercenaries. These, added to twenty-five thousandmen enlisted in England, and the troops already sent to America, constituted a force of fifty-five thousand men--deemed amplysufficient to reduce the rebellious colonies. But these were not sentto America until the next year. 

In the mean time, General Howe was encamped in Boston with a force, including seamen, of eleven thousand men, and General Washington, withan army of twenty-eight thousand, including militia, was determined toattack him. In February, 1776, he took possession of DorchesterHeights, which command the harbor. General Howe found it expedient toevacuate Boston, and sailed for Halifax with his army, and Washingtonrepaired to Philadelphia to deliberate with Congress. 

But Howe retired from Boston only to occupy New York; and when hisarrangements were completed, he landed at Staten Island, waiting forthe arrival of his brother, Lord Howe, with the expectedreinforcements. By the middle of August they had all arrived, and hisunited forces amounted to twenty-four thousand men. Washington's army, though it nominally numbered twenty thousand five hundred, still wascomposed of only about eleven thousand effective men, and theseimperfectly provided with arms and ammunition. Nevertheless, Washington gave battle to the English; but the result was disastrousto the Americans, owing to the disproportion of the forces engaged. General Howe took possession of Long Island, the Americans evacuatedNew York, and, shortly after, the city fell into the hands of theEnglish. Washington, with his diminished army, posted himself atHaerlem Heights. 

[Sidenote: Declaration of American Independence. ]

But before the victory of Howe on Long Island was obtained, Congresshad declared the Independence of the American States, (4th July, 1776. ) This Declaration of Independence took the English nation bysurprise, and firmly united it against the colonies. It was receivedby the Americans, in every section of the country, with unboundedenthusiasm. Reconciliation was now impossible, and both countries werearrayed against each other in fierce antagonism. 

The remainder of the campaign of 1776 was occupied by the belligerentsin skirmishing, engagements, marchings and countermarchings, in thestates of New York and New Jersey. The latter state was overrun by theEnglish army, and success, on either side, was indecisive. FortsWashington and Lee were captured. General Lee was taken prisoner. Thecapture of Lee, however, was not so great a calamity as it, at first, seemed; for, though a man of genius and military experience, hisambition, vanity, and love of glory would probably have led to anopposition to his superior officer, and to Congress itself. Tocompensate for the disasters in New Jersey, Washington, invested withnew and extraordinary power by Congress, gained the battles ofPrinceton and Trenton, which were not only brilliant victories, butwere attended by great moral effects, and showed the difficulty ofsubduing a people determined to be free. "Every one applauded thefirmness, the prudence, and the bravery of Washington. All declaredhim to be the savior of his country; all proclaimed him equal to themost renowned commanders of antiquity, and especially distinguishedhim by the name of the _American Fabius_. "

The greatness of Washington was seen, not so much by his victories atPrinceton and Trenton, or by his masterly retreat before superiorforces, as by his admirable prudence and patience during thesucceeding winter. He had, for several months, a force which scarcelyexceeded fifteen hundred men, and these suffered all manner ofhardships and privations. After the first gush of enthusiasm hadpassed, it was found exceedingly difficult to enlist men, and stillmore difficult to pay those who had enlisted. Congress, composed ofgreat men, and of undoubted patriotism, on the whole, harmonized withthe commander-in-chief, whom, for six months, it invested with almostdictatorial power; still there were some of its members who did notfully appreciate the character or condition of Washington, and threwgreat difficulties in his way. 

[Sidenote: Commissioners Sent to France. ]

Congress about this time sent commissioners to France to solicit moneyand arms. These commissioners were Dr. Franklin, Silas Deane, andArthur Lee. They were not immediately successful; for the French king, doubtful of the result of the struggle, did not wish to incurprematurely the hostility of Great Britain; but they induced many tojoin the American cause, and among others, the young Marquis de LaFayette, who arrived in America in the spring of 1777, and proved amost efficient general, and secured the confidence and love of thenation he assisted. 

[Sidenote: Capture of Burgoyne. ]

The campaign of 1777 was marked by the evacuation of the Jerseys bythe English, by the battles of Bennington and Brandywine, by thecapture of Philadelphia, and the surrender of Burgoyne. Success, onthe whole, was in favor of the Americans. They suffered a check atBrandywine, and lost the most considerable city in the Union at thattime. But these disasters were more than compensated by the victory atBennington and the capture of Burgoyne. 

[Sidenote: Moral Effects of Burgoyne's Capture. ]

This indeed was the great event of the campaign. Burgoyne was a memberof parliament, and superseded General Carleton in the command of thenorthern army--an injudicious appointment, but made by the minister inorder to carry his measures more easily through the House of Commons. The troops under his command amounted to over seven thousand veterans, besides a corps of artillery. He set out from St. John's, the 16th ofJune, and advanced to Ticonderoga, which he invested. The Americanforces, under General Schuyler, destined to oppose this royal army, and to defend Ticonderoga, were altogether insufficient, being notover five thousand men. The fortress was therefore abandoned, and theBritish general advanced to the Hudson, hoping to open a communicationbetween it and Lake Champlain, and thus completely surround NewEngland, and isolate it from the rest of the country. But the delaysattending the march of the English army through the forests enabledthe Americans to rally. The defeat of Colonel Baum at Bennington, byColonel Stark, added to the embarrassments of Burgoyne, who now wasstraitened for provisions; nevertheless, he continued his march, hoping to reach Albany unmolested. But the Americans, commanded byGeneral Gates, who had superseded Schuyler, were strongly intrenchedat the principal passes on his route, and had fortified the highgrounds. The army of Burgoyne was moreover attacked by the Americansat Stillwater, and he was forced to retreat to Saratoga. His army wasnow reduced to five thousand men; he had only three days' provisions;all the passes were filled by the enemy, and he was completelysurrounded by fifteen thousand men. Under these circumstances, he wasforced to surrender. His troops laid down their arms, but were allowedto embark at Boston for Europe. The Americans, by this victory, acquired forty-two pieces of brass artillery, four thousand sixhundred muskets, and an immense quantity of military stores. Thissurrender of Burgoyne was the greatest disaster which the Britishtroops had thus far experienced, and raised the spirits of theAmericans to the highest pitch. Indeed, this surrender decided thefate of the war, for it proved the impossibility of conquering theAmericans. It showed that they fought under infinitely greateradvantages, since it was in their power always to decline a battle, and to choose their ground. It showed that the country presenteddifficulties which were insurmountable. It mattered but little thatcities were taken, when the great body of the people resided in thecountry, and were willing to make sacrifices, and were commanded bysuch generals as Washington, Gates, Greene, Putnam, and Lee. TheEnglish ministry ought to have seen the nature of the contest; but astrange infatuation blinded the nation. There were some, however, whomno national pride could blind. Lord Chatham was one of these men. "Noman, " said this veteran statesman, "thinks more highly of the virtuesand valor of British troops than I do. I know that they can achieveany thing except impossibilities. But the conquest of America is animpossibility. "

There was one nation in Europe who viewed the contest with differenteyes. This nation was France, then on the eve of revolution itself, and burning with enthusiastic love of the principles on which Americanindependence was declared. The French government may not have admiredthe American cause, but it hated England so intensely, that it wasresolved to acknowledge the independence of America, and aid thecountry with its forces. 

[Sidenote: Arrival of La Fayette. ]

In the early part of the war, the American Congress had sentcommissioners to France, in order to obtain assistance. In consequenceof their representations, La Fayette, then a young man of nineteenyears of age, freighted a ship at his own expense, and joined theAmerican standard. Congress, in consideration of his illustrious rankand singular enthusiasm, gave him a commission of major-general. Andgloriously did he fulfil the great expectations which were formed ofhim; richly did he deserve the gratitude and praise of all the friendsof liberty. 

La Fayette embarked in the American cause as a volunteer. The court ofFrance, in the early period of the contest, did not think it expedientopenly to countenance the revolution. But, after the surrender ofBurgoyne, and it was evident that the United States would succeed insecuring their independence, then it was acknowledged, and substantialaid was rendered. 

The winter which succeeded the surrender of Burgoyne is memorable forthe sufferings of the American army encamped at Valley Forge, abouttwenty miles from Philadelphia. The army was miserably supplied withprovisions and clothing, and strong discontent appeared in variousquarters. Out of eleven thousand eight hundred men, nearly threethousand were barefooted and otherwise naked. But the sufferingsof the army were not the only causes of solicitude to thecommander-in-chief, on whom chiefly rested the responsibility of thewar. The officers were discontented, and were not prepared, any morethan the privates, to make permanent sacrifices. They were obliged tobreak in upon their private property, and were without any prospect offuture relief. Washington was willing to make any sacrifices himself, and refused any payment for his own expenses; but, while he exhibitedthe rarest magnanimity, he did not expect it from others, and urgedCongress to provide for the future pay of the officers, when the warshould close. He looked upon human nature as it was, not as he wishedit to be, and recognized the principles of self-interest as well asthose of patriotism. It was his firm conviction that a long andlasting war could not, even in those times, be sustained by theprinciple of patriotism alone, but required, in addition, the prospectof interest, or some reward. The members of Congress did not all agreewith him in his views, and expected that officers would make greatersacrifices than private citizens, but, after a while, the plan ofhalf-pay for life, as Washington proposed, was adopted by a smallmajority, though afterwards changed to half-pay for seven years. Therewas also a prejudice in many minds against a standing army, besidesthe jealousies and antipathies which existed between differentsections of the Union. But Washington, with his rare practical goodsense, combated these, as well as the fears of the timid and theschemes of the selfish. The history of the Revolution impresses uswith the greatness and bravery of the American nation; and everyAmerican should feel proud of his ancestors for the efforts they made, under so many discouragements, to secure their liberties; but it wouldbe a mistake to suppose that nothing but exalted heroism wasexhibited. Human nature showed its degeneracy in the camp and on thefield of battle, among heroes and among patriots. The perfection ofcharacter, so far as man is ever perfect, was exhibited indeed, byWashington, but by Washington alone. 

The army remained at Valley Forge till June, 1778. In the mean time, Lord North made another ineffectual effort to procure reconciliation. But he was too late. His offers might have been accepted at thecommencement of the contest; but nothing short of completeindependence would now satisfy the Americans, and this North was notwilling to concede. Accordingly, new measures of coercion wereresorted to by the minister, although the British forces in Americawere upwards of thirty-three thousand. 

[Sidenote: Evacuation of Philadelphia. ]

On the 18th of June, Sir Henry Clinton, who had succeeded Sir WilliamHowe in command of the British forces, evacuated Philadelphia, thepossession of which had proved of no service to the English, except aswinter quarters for the troops. It was his object to proceed to NewYork, for which place he marched with his army, having sent his heavybaggage by water. The Americans, with superior forces, hung upon hisrear, and sought an engagement. An indecisive one occurred atMonmouth, during which General Lee disregarded the orders of hissuperior in command, and was suspended for twelve months. There neverwas perfect harmony between Washington and Lee; and the aid of thelatter, though a brave and experienced officer, was easily dispensedwith. 

No action of importance occurred during this campaign, and it waschiefly signalized by the arrival of the Count d'Estaing, with twelveships of the line and four frigates, to assist the Americans. But, inconsequence of disagreements and mistakes, this large armament failedto engage the English naval forces. 

The campaign of 1779 was not more decisive than that of the precedingyear. Military operations were chiefly confined to the southernsections of the country, in which the English generally gained theadvantage, having superior forces. They overran the country, inflamedthe hostility of the Indians, and destroyed considerable property. Butthey gained no important victory, and it was obvious to all partiesthat conquest was impossible. 

[Sidenote: The Treason of Arnold. ]

The campaign of 1780 is memorable for the desertion of General Arnold. Though not attended by important political results, it produced anintense excitement. He was intrusted with the care of the fortress ofWest Point, which commanded the Hudson River; but, dissatisfied, extravagant, and unprincipled, he thought to mend his broken fortunesby surrendering it to the British, who occupied New York. His treasonwas discovered when his schemes were on the point of beingaccomplished; but he contrived to escape, and was made abrigadier-general in the service of the enemy. Public execrationloaded his name with ignominy, and posterity has not reversed theverdict of his indignant countrymen. His disgrace and ruin wereprimarily caused by his extravagance and his mortified pride. Washington fully understood his want of moral principle, but continuedto intrust him with power, in view of the great services he hadrendered his country, and his unquestioned bravery and militarytalents. After his defection, the American commander-in-chief wasnever known to intrust an important office to a man in whose virtue hehad not implicit faith. The fate of Major André, who negotiated thetreason with Arnold, and who was taken as a spy, was much lamented bythe English Neither his family, nor rank, nor accomplishments, norvirtues nor the intercession of Sir Henry Clinton, could save him frommilitary execution, according to the established laws of war. Washington has been blamed for not exercising more forbearance in thecase of so illustrious a prisoner; but the American general neverdeparted from the rigid justice which he deemed it his duty to pursue. 

During this year, the American currency had singularly depreciated, sothat forty dollars were worth only one in specie--a fact which showsthe embarrassments of the country, and the difficulty of supportingthe army. But the prospects of ultimate success enabled Congress, atlength, to negotiate loans, and the army was kept together. 

[Sidenote: Surrender of Lord Cornwallis. ]

The great event in the campaign of 1781 was the surrender of LordCornwallis, at Yorktown, which decided the fate of the war. LordCornwallis, who was an able commander, had been successful at thesouth, although vigorously and skilfully opposed by General LaFayette. But he had at last to contend with the main body of theAmerican army, and French forces in addition, so that the combinedarmies amounted to over twelve thousand men. He was compelled tosurrender to superior forces; and seven thousand prisoners, with alltheir baggage and stores, fell into the hands of the victors, 19th ofOctober, 1781. This great event diffused universal joy throughoutAmerica, and a corresponding depression among the English people. 

After this capitulation, the conviction was general that the war wouldsoon be terminated. General La Fayette obtained leave to return toFrance, and the recruiting service languished. The war nevertheless, was continued until 1783; without, however, being signalized by anygreat events. On the 30th of November, 1782, preliminary articles ofpeace were signed at Paris, by which Great Britain acknowledged theindependence of the United States, and by which the whole countrysouth of the lakes and east of the Mississippi was ceded to them, andthe right of fishing on the Banks of Newfoundland. 

On the 25th of November, 1783, the British troops evacuated New York;and, shortly after, the American army was disbanded. The 4th ofDecember, Washington made his farewell address to his officers; and, on the 23d of December, he resigned his commission into the hands ofthe body from which he received it, and retired to private life;having discharged the great trust reposed in him in a manner whichsecured the gratitude of his country and which will probably win theplaudits of all future generations. 

The results of the Revolutionary War can only be described byenumerating the progressive steps of American aggrandizement from thattime to this, and by speculating on the future destinies of theAnglo-Saxon race on the American continent. The success which attendedthis long war is in part to be traced to the talents and matchlesswisdom and integrity of the commander-in-chief; to the intrepidcourage and virtues of the armies he directed; to the self-confidenceand inexperience of the English generals; to the difficultiesnecessarily attending the conquest of forests, and swamps, andscattered towns; to the assistance of the French nation; and, aboveall, to the superintending providence of God, who designed to rescuethe sons of the Pilgrims from foreign oppression, and, in spite oftheir many faults, to make them a great and glorious nation, in whichreligious and civil liberty should be perpetuated, and all men leftfree to pursue their own means of happiness, and develop theinexhaustible resources of a great and boundless empire. 

[Sidenote: Resignation of Lord North. ]

The English nation acquiesced in an event which all felt to beinevitable; but Lord North was compelled to resign, and a change ofmeasures was pursued. It is now time to contemplate English affairs, until the French Revolution. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The books written on the American Revolution are very numerous, an index to which may be seen in Botta's History, as well as in the writings of those who have treated of this great event. Sparks's Life and Correspondence of Washington is doubtless the most valuable work which has yet appeared since Marshall wrote the Life of Washington. Guizot's Essay on Washington is exceedingly able; nor do I know any author who has so profoundly analyzed the character and greatness of the American hero. Botta's History of the Revolution is a popular but superficial and overlauded book. Mr. Hale's History of the United States is admirably adapted to the purpose for which it is designed, and is the best compendium of American history. Stedman is the standard authority in England. Belsham, in his History of George III. , has written candidly and with spirit. Smyth, in his lectures on Modern History, has discussed the Revolution with great ability. See also the works of Ramsay, Winterbotham, Allen, and Gordon. The lives of the prominent American generals, statesmen, and orators, should also be read in connection; especially of Lee, Greene, Franklin, Adams, and Henry, which are best described in Sparks's American Biography. 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

ADMINISTRATION OF WILLIAM PITT. 

[Sidenote: William Pitt. ]

We come now to consider the most eventful administration, in manyimportant respects, in British annals. The greatness of militaryoperations, the magnitude of reforms, and the great number ofillustrious statesmen and men of genius, make the period, when Pittmanaged the helm of state, full of interest and grandeur. 

[Sidenote: Early Life of Pitt. ]

William Pitt, second son of the first Earl of Chatham, entered publiclife at a very early age, and was prime minister of George III. At aperiod of life when most men are just completing a professionaleducation. He was a person of extraordinary precocity. He enteredCambridge University at the age of fourteen, and at that period was afinished Greek and Latin scholar. He spent no idle hours, and evincedbut little pleasure in the sports common to boys of his age. He was assuccessful in mastering mathematics as the languages, and was anadmirer of the profoundest treatises of intellectual philosophy. Heexcelled in every branch of knowledge to which he directed hisattention. In 1780, at the age of twenty-one, he became a resident inLincoln's Inn, entered parliament the succeeding spring, andimmediately assumed an active part. His first speech astonished allwho heard him, notwithstanding that great expectations were formedconcerning his power. He was made chancellor of the exchequer at theage of twenty-three, and at a time when it required a finance ministerof the greatest experience. Nor would the Commons have acquiesced inhis appointment to so important a post, in so critical a state of thenation, had not great confidence existed as to his abilities. From hisfirst appearance, Pitt took a commanding position as a parliamentaryorator; nor, as such, has he ever, on the whole, been surpassed. Hispeculiar talents fitted him for the highest post in the gift of hissovereign, and the circumstances of the times, in addition, were suchas were calculated to develop all the energies and talents hepossessed. He was not the most commanding intellect of his age, but hewas, unquestionably, the greatest orator that England has produced, and exercised, to the close of his career, in spite of the oppositionof such men as Burke, Fox, and Sheridan, an overwhelming parliamentaryinfluence. He was a prodigy; as great in debate, and in executivepower, as Napoleon was in the field, Bacon in philosophy, orShakspeare in poetry. It is difficult for us to conceive how a youngman, just emerging from college halls, should be able to answer thedifficult questions of veteran statesmen who had been all their livesopposing the principles he advanced, and to assume at once the powerswith which his father was intrusted only at a mature period of life. Pitt was almost beyond envy, and the proud nobles and princelycapitalists of the richest, proudest, and most conservative country inthe world, surrendered to him the guardianship of their liberties withno more fear or distrust than the hereditary bondmen of Turkey orRussia would have shown in hailing the accession of a new emperor. Hewas born to command, one of nature's despots, and he assumed the reinsof government with a perfect consciousness of his abilities to rule. 

He was only twenty-four years of age when he began to reign; for, asprime minister of George III. , he was, during his continuance inoffice, the absolute ruler of the British empire. He had, virtually, the nomination of his colleagues, and, through them, the direction ofall executive affairs. He was controlled by the legislature only, andparliament was subservient to his will. What a proud position for ayoung man to occupy! A commoner, with a limited fortune, to give lawsto a vast empire, and to have a proud nobility obedient to his will;and all this by the force of talents alone--talents which extortedadmiration and respect. He selected Lord Thurlow as chancellor, LordGower as president of the council, the Duke of Richmond as lord privyseal, Lords Carmarthen and Sydney as secretaries of state, and LordHowe as first lord of the admiralty. These were his chief associatesin resisting a powerful opposition, and in regulating the affairs of avast empire--the concerns of India, the national debt, the necessarytaxation, domestic tranquillity, and intercourse with foreign powers. But he deserved the confidence of his sovereign and of the nation, andthey sustained him in his extraordinary embarrassments anddifficulties. 

[Sidenote: Policy of Pitt. ]

The policy of the administration is not here to be discussed; but itwas the one pursued, in the main, by his father, and one whichgratified the national pride. The time has not yet come for us todecide, with certainty, on the wisdom of his course. He was theadvocate of measures which had for their object nationalaggrandizement. He was the strenuous defender of war, and he wouldoppose Napoleon and all the world to secure preëminence to GreatBritain. He believed that glory was better than money; he thought thatan overwhelming debt was a less evil than national disgrace; heexaggerated the resources and strength of his country, and believedthat it was destined to give laws to the world; he underrated theabilities of other nations to make great advances in mechanical skilland manufacturing enterprise; he supposed that English manufactureswould be purchased forever by the rest of the world, and thereforethat England, in spite of the debt, would make all nations contributeto her glory and wealth. It was to him a matter of indifference howheavily the people were taxed to pay the interest on a fictitiousdebt, provided that, by their commerce and manufactures, they couldfind abundant means to pay this interest. And so long as England couldfind a market for her wares, the nation would not suffer fromtaxation. His error was in supposing that England, forever, wouldmanufacture for the world; that English skill was superior to theskill of all other nations; that there was a superiority in the verynature of an Englishman which would enable him, in any country, orunder any circumstances, to overcome all competitors and rivals. Suchviews were grateful to his nation; and he, by continually flatteringthe national vanity, and ringing the changes on glory and patriotism, induced it to follow courses which may one day result in overwhelmingcalamities. Self-exaggeration is as fatal to a nation as it is to anindividual, and constitutes that pride which precedes destruction. Butthe mere debt of England, being owed to herself, and not to anothernation, is not so alarming as it is sometimes supposed. The worstconsequence, in a commercial point of view, is national bankruptcy;but if England becomes bankrupt, her factories, her palaces, herwarehouses, and her ships remain. These are not destroyed. Substantialwealth does not fly from the island, but merely passes from the handsof capitalists to the people. The policy of Pitt has merely enrichedthe few at the expense of the many--has confirmed the power of thearistocracy. When manufacturers can no longer compete with those ofother countries, upon such unequal terms as are rendered necessary inconsequence of unparalleled taxation to support the public creditors, then the public creditors must suffer rather than the manufacturerhimself. The manufacturer must live. This class composes a great partof the nation. The people must be fed, and they will be fed; and theycan be fed as cheaply as in any country, were it not for taxes. Thepolicy of Pitt, during the period of commercial prosperity, tended, indeed, to strengthen the power of the aristocracy--that class towhich he belonged, and to which the House of Commons, who sustainedhim, belonged. But it was suicidal, as is the policy of all selfishmen; and ultimately must tend to revolutionary measures, even thoughthose measures may not be carried by massacres and blazing thrones. 

But we must hasten to consider the leading events which characterizedthe administration of William Pitt. These were the troubles inIreland, parliamentary reforms, the aggrandizement of the East IndiaCompany, the trial of Hastings, debates on the slave trade, and thewar with France in consequence of the French Revolution. 

[Sidenote: Difficulties with Ireland. ]

[Sidenote: The United Irishmen. ]

The difficulties with Ireland did not become alarming until the FrenchRevolution had created a spirit of discontent and agitation in allparts of Great Britain. Soon after his accession to power, Mr. Flood, a distinguished member of the Irish House of Commons, brought in abill of parliamentary reform, which, after a long debate, wasnegatived. Though his measure was defeated in the House, its advocatesout of doors were not cast down, but took measures to form a nationalcongress, for the amelioration of the evils which existed. A largedelegation of the people actually met at Dublin, and petitionedparliament for the redress of grievances. Mr. Pitt considered thematter with proper attention, and labored to free the commerce ofIreland from the restraints under which it labored. But, in so doing, he excited the jealousy of British merchants and manufacturers, andthey induced him to remodel his propositions for the relief ofIreland, which were then adopted. Tranquillity was restored until theyear 1791, when there appeared at Belfast the plan of an association, under the name of the _United Irishmen_, whose object was a radicalreform of all the evils which had existed in Ireland since itsconnection with England. This association soon extended throughout theisland, and numbered an immense body of both Protestants and Catholicswho were disaffected with the government. In consequence of thedisaffections, especially among the Catholics, the English ministrymade many concessions, and the legislature allowed Catholics topractice law, to intermarry with Protestants, and to obtain anunrestrained education. But parliament also took measures to preventthe assembling of any convention of the people, and augmented themilitia in case of disturbance. But disturbances took place, and theUnited Irishmen began to contemplate an entire separation fromEngland, and other treasonable designs. In consequence of thesecommotions, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and a militarygovernment was enforced with all its rigor. The United Irish pretendedto submit, but laid still deeper schemes, and extended theiraffiliations. In May, 1797, the number of men enrolled by the union inUlster alone was one hundred thousand, and their organization wasperfect. The French government was aware of the union, which graduallynumbered five hundred thousand men, and promised it assistance. TheIrish, however, relied chiefly upon themselves, and prepared to resistthe English government, which was resolved on pursuing the mostvigorous measures. A large military force was sent to Ireland, andseveral ringleaders of the contemplated insurrection were arrested. 

But the timely discovery of the conspiracy prevented one of the mostbloody contests which ever happened in Ireland. Nevertheless, theinsurrection broke out in some places, and in the county of Wexfordwas really formidable. The rebels numbered twenty thousand men. Theygot possession of Wexford, and committed great barbarities; but theywere finally subdued by Lord Cornwallis. Had the French coöperated, asthey had promised, with a force of fifteen thousand, it is notimprobable that Ireland would have been wrested from England. But theFrench had as much as they could do, at this time, to take care ofthemselves; and Ireland was again subjected to greater oppressionsthan before. 

The Irish parliament had hitherto been a mere body of perpetualdictators. By the Octennial Bill, this oligarchy was disbanded, andthe House of Commons wore something of the appearance of aconstitutional assembly, and there were found in it some men ofintegrity and sagacity. Ireland also had her advocates in the Britishsenate; but whenever the people or the parliament gained a victoryover the viceroy, some accident or blunder deprived the nation ofreaping the fruits. The Commons became again corrupted, and theindependence which Ireland obtained ceased to have a value. Thecorrupted Commons basely surrendered all that had been obtained. Invain the eloquence of Curran and Grattan. The Irish nation, withoutpublic virtue, a prey to faction, and a scene of corruption, became atlast powerless and politically helpless. The rebellion of 1798 was amere peasants' war, without intelligence to guide, or experience tocounsel. It therefore miserably failed, but did not fail until fiftythousand rebels and twenty thousand royalists had perished. 

[Sidenote: Union of England and Ireland. ]

In June, 1800, the union of Ireland and England was effected, on thesame basis as that between England and Scotland in the time of Anne. It was warmly opposed by some of the more patriotic of the Irishstatesmen, and only carried by corruption and bribery. By this union, foreign legislation took the place of the guidance of those bestqualified to know the national grievances; the Irish members became, in the British senate, merely the tools of the administration. Absenteeism was nearly doubled, and the national importance nearlyannihilated in a political point of view. But, on the other hand, anoligarchal tyranny was broken, and the bond of union which bound thecountries was strengthened, and the nation subsided into a greaterstate of tranquillity. Twenty-eight peers and one hundred commonerswere admitted into the English parliament. 

Notwithstanding the suppression of the rebellion of 1798, only fiveyears elapsed before another one was contemplated--the result ofrepublican principles, and of national grievances. The leaders wereRobert Emmet and Thomas Russell. But their treasonable designs weremiserably supported by their countrymen, and they were able to makebut a feeble effort, which immediately failed. These men werearrested, tried, and executed. The speech of Emmet, before hisexecution, has been much admired for its spirit of patriotism andpensive eloquence. His grand mistake consisted in overrating thestrength of democratic influences, and in supposing that, by violentmeasures, he could overturn a strong military government. The Irishwere not prepared for freedom, still less republican freedom. Therewas not sufficient concert, or patriotism, or intelligence, to securepopular liberty, and the antipathy between the Catholic and Protestantpopulation was too deeply seated and too malignant to hope, reasonably, for a lasting union. 

[Sidenote: Condition of Ireland. ]

All the measures which have been adopted for the independence andelevation of Ireland have failed, and the country is still in aslamentable a state as ever. It presents a grand enigma and mystery tothe politician. All the skill of statesmen is baffled in devisingmeans for the tranquillity and improvement of that unhappy andunfortunate country. The more privileges the people gain, and thegreater assistance they receive, the more unreasonable appear to betheir demands, and the more extravagant their expectations. Still, there are great and shameful evils, which ought to be remedied. Thereare nearly five millions of acres of waste land in the country, capable of the highest cultivation. The soil is inexhaustibly rich, the climate is most delightful, and the natural advantages foragriculture and commerce unprecedented. Still the Irish remainoppressed and poor; enslaved by their priests, and ground down to theearth by exacting landlords and a hostile government. There is no realunion between England and Ireland, no sympathy between the differentclasses, and an implacable animosity between the Protestant andCatholic population. The northern and Protestant part of the island isthe most flourishing; but Ireland, in any light it may be viewed, isthe most miserable country, with all the gifts of nature, the worstgoverned, and the most afflicted, in Christendom; and no humansagacity or wisdom has yet been able to devise a remedy for theinnumerable evils which prevail. The permanent causes of thedegradation of the Irish peasantry, in their own country, have beenvariously attributed to the Roman Catholic priesthood, to the tyrannyof the government, to the system by which the lands are leased andcultivated, and to the natural elements of the Irish character. These, united, may have produced the effects which all philanthropistsdeplore; but no one cause, in particular, can account for so fine anation sinking into such poverty and wretchedness, especially when itis considered that the same idle and miserable peasantry, whentransplanted to America, exhibit very different dispositions andtastes, and develop traits of character which command respect andsecure prosperity. 

[Sidenote: Parliamentary Reform. ]

The first plan for parliamentary reform was brought forward by Pitt in1782, before he was prime minister, in consequence of a large numberof the House representing no important interests, and dependent on theminister. But his motion was successfully opposed. In May, 1783, hebrought in another bill to add one hundred members to the House ofCommons, and to abolish a proportionate number of the small andobnoxious boroughs. This plan, though supported by Fox, was negativedby a great majority. In 1785, he made a third attempt to secure areform of parliament, and again failed; and with this last attemptended all his efforts for this object. So persuaded was he of theimpracticability of the measure, that he even uniformly opposed theobject when attempted by others. Moreover, he changed his opinionswhen he perceived the full connection and bearing of the subject withother agitating questions. He was desirous of a reform, if it could beobtained without mischief; but when it became a democratic measure, heopposed it with all his might. Indeed, he avowed that he preferred tohave parliament remain as it was, forever, rather than risk anyprospects of reform when the country was so deeply agitated byrevolutionary discussions. Mr. Pitt perfectly understood that thosepersons who were most eager for parliamentary reform, desired theoverthrow of the existing institutions of the land, or, at least, suchas were inconsistent with the hereditary succession to the throne, hereditary titles, and the whole system of entailed estates. Mr. Pitt, as he grew older, more powerful, and more experienced, became morearistocratic and conservative; feared to touch any of the old supportsof the constitution for fear of producing a revolution--an evil which, of all evils, he most abhorred. Mr. Burke, though opposed to theminister, here defended him, and made an eloquent speech againstrevolutionary measures. Nor can we wonder at the change of opinion, which Mr. Pitt and others admitted, when it is considered that theadvocates of parliamentary reform also were associated with men ofinfidel and dangerous principles. Thomas Paine was one of the apostlesof liberty in that age, and his writings had a very great and verypernicious influence on the people at large. It is very singular, butnevertheless true, that some of the most useful reforms have beenprojected by men of infidel principles, and infidelity andrevolutionary excess have generally been closely connected. 

But the reform question did not deeply agitate the people of Englanduntil a much later period. One of the most exciting events, in thedomestic history of England during the administration of Pitt, was thetrial of Hastings and the difficulties which grew out of theaggrandizement of the East India Company. 

[Sidenote: Warren Hastings. ]

In the chapter on colonization, allusion was made to Indian affairsuntil the close of the administration of Lord Clive. Warren Hastingscontinued the encroachments and conquests which Clive had sosuccessfully begun. He went to India in 1750, at the age of seventeen, as a clerk in the service of the company. It was then merely acommercial corporation. His talents and sagacity insured hisprosperity. He gradually was promoted, and, in 1772, was appointedhead of the government in Bengal. But the governor was not then, as henow is, nearly absolute, and he had only one vote in the council whichrepresented the company at Calcutta. He was therefore frequentlyoverruled, and his power was crippled. But he contrived to makeimportant changes, and abolished the office of the minister to whomwas delegated the collection of the revenue and the general regulationof internal affairs--an office which had been always held by a native. Hastings transferred the internal administration to the servants ofthe company, and in various other ways improved the finances of thecompany, the members of which were indifferent, comparatively, to thecondition of the people of India, provided that they themselves wereenriched. To enrich the company and extend its possessions, even atthe expense of justice and humanity, became the object of thegovernor-general. He succeeded; but success brought upon him theimprecations of the natives and the indignant rebukes of his owncountrymen. In less than two years after he had assumed thegovernment, he added four hundred thousand pounds to the annual incomeof the company, besides nearly a million in ready money. But theadministration of Hastings cannot be detailed. We can only notice thatpart of it which led to his trial in England. 

[Sidenote: War with Hyder Ali. ]

The great event which marked his government was the war with HyderAli, the Mohammedan sovereign of Mysore. The province of Bengal andthe Carnatic had been, for some time, under the protection of theEnglish. Adjoining the Carnatic, in the centre of the peninsula, werethe dominions of Hyder Ali. Had Hastings been governor of Madras, hewould have conciliated him, or vigorously encountered him as an enemy. But the authorities at Madras had done neither. They provoked him tohostilities, and, with an army of ninety thousand men, he invaded theCarnatic. British India was on the verge of ruin. Hyder Ali was everywhere triumphant, and only a few fortified places remained to theEnglish. 

Hastings, when he heard of the calamity, instantly adopted the mostvigorous measures. He settled his difficulties with the Mahrattas; hesuspended the incapable governor of Fort George, and sent Sir EyreCoote to oppose the great Mohammedan prince who threatened to subvertthe English power in India. 

But Hastings had not the money which was necessary to carry on anexpensive war with the most formidable enemy the English everencountered in the East. He therefore resolved to plunder the richestand most sacred city of India--Benares. It was the seat of Indianlearning and devotion, and contained five hundred thousand people. Itstemple, as seen from the Ganges, was the most imposing in the Easternworld, while its bazaars were filled with the most valuable and rareof Indian commodities; with the muslins of Bengal, the shawls ofCashmere, the sabres of Oude, and the silks of its own looms. 

This rich capital was governed by a prince nominally subject to theGreat Mogul, but who was dependent on the Nabob of Oude, a largeprovince north of the Ganges, near the Himmaleh Mountains. Benares andits territories, being oppressed by the Nabob of Oude, sought theprotection of the British. Their protection was, of course, readilyextended; but it was fatal to the independence of Benares. Thealliance with the English was like the protection Rome extended toGreece when threatened by Asia, and which ended in the subjection ofboth Greece and Asia. The Rajah of Benares became the vassal of thecompany, and therefore was obliged to furnish money for the protectionhe enjoyed. 

But the tribute which the Rajah of Benares paid did not satisfyHastings. He exacted still greater sums, which led to an insurrectionand ultimate conquest. The fair domains of Cheyte Sing, the lord ofBenares, were added to the dominions of the company together with anincreased revenue of two hundred thousand pounds a year. The treasureof the rajah amounted to two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, andthis was divided as prize money among the English. 

[Sidenote: Robbery of the Princesses of Oude. ]

The rapacious governor-general did not obtain the treasure which heexpected to find at Benares, and then resolved to rob the Princessesof Oude, who had been left with immense treasures on the death ofSuraj-w Dowlah, the nabob vizier of the Grand Mogul. The only pretextwhich Hastings could find was, that the insurrection at Benares hadproduced disturbances at Oude, and which disturbances were imputed tothe princesses. Great barbarities were inflicted in order to securethese treasures; but the robbers were successful, and immense sumsflowed into the treasury of the company. By these iniquities, thegovernor found means to conduct the war in the Carnatic successfully, and a treaty was concluded with Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, by whichthe company reigned without a rival on the great Indian peninsula. 

When peace was restored to India, and the company's servants hadaccumulated immense fortunes, Hastings returned to England. But theiniquities he had practised excited great indignation among thosestatesmen who regarded justice and humanity as better supports to agovernment than violence and rapine. 

Foremost among these patriots was Edmund Burke. He had long been amember of the select committee to investigate Indian affairs, and hehad bestowed great attention to them, and fully understood the coursewhich Hastings had pursued. 

Through his influence, an inquiry into the conduct of the lategovernor-general was instituted, and he was accordingly impeached atthe bar of the House of Lords. Mr. Pitt permitted matters to taketheir natural course; but the king, the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, theministers generally, and the directors of the East India Companyespoused his cause. They regarded him as a very great man, whose rulehad been glorious to the nation, in spite of the mistakes andcruelties which marked his government. He had added an empire to theBritish crown, educed order out of anarchy, and organized a system ofadministration which, in its essential features, has remained to thistime. He enriched the company, while he did not enrich himself; for heeasily might have accumulated a fortune of three millions of pounds. And he moreover contrived, in spite of his extortions and conquests, to secure the respect of the native population, whose national andreligious prejudices he endeavored not to shock. "These thingsinspired good will. At the same time, his constant success, and themanner in which he extricated himself from every difficulty, made himan object of superstitious admiration; and the more than regalsplendor which he sometimes displayed, dazzled a people who have muchin common with children. Even now, after the lapse of more than fiftyyears, the natives of India still talk of him as the greatest of theEnglish, and nurses sing children to sleep with a gingling balladabout the fleet horses and richly-caparisoned elephants of SahibWarren Hostein. "

[Sidenote: Prosecution of Hastings. ]

But neither the admiration of the people of the East for the splendidabilities of Hastings, nor the gratitude of a company of merchants, nor the powerful friends he had in the English parliament, couldscreen him from the malignant hatred of Francis, or the purerindignation of Burke. The zeal which the latter evinced in hisprosecution has never been equalled, and all his energies, for years, were devoted to the exposure of a person whom he regarded as "adelinquent of the first magnitude. " "He had just as lively an idea ofthe insurrection at Benares as of Lord George Gordon's riots, and ofthe execution of Nuncomar as of the execution of Dr. Dodd. " Burke wasassisted in his vehement prosecution by Charles James Fox, thegreatest debater ever known in the House of Commons, but a man vastlyinferior to himself in moral elevation, in general knowledge, in powerof fancy, and in profound wisdom. 

The trial was at Westminster Hall, the hall which had witnessed theinauguration of thirty kings, and the trials of accused nobles sincethe time of William Rufus. And he was a culprit not unworthy of thatgreat tribunal before which he was summoned--"a tribunal which hadpronounced sentence on Strafford, and pardon on Somers"--the tribunalbefore which royalty itself had been called to account. Hastings hadruled, with absolute sway, a country which was more populous and moreextensive than any of the kingdoms of Europe, and had gained a famewhich was bounded only by the unknown countries of the globe. He wasdefended by three men who subsequently became the three highest judgesof the land, and he was encouraged by the appearance and sympatheticsmiles of the highest nobles of the realm. 

[Sidenote: Edmund Burke. ]

But greater than all were the mighty statesmen who conducted theprosecution. First among them in character and genius was EdmundBurke, who, from the time that he first spoke in the House of Commons, in 1766, had been a prominent member, and had, at length, securedgreater fame than any of his contemporaries, Pitt alone excepted, notmerely as an orator, but as an enlightened statesman, a philosopher, and a philanthropist. He excelled all the great men with whom he wasassociated, in the variety of his powers; he was a poet even while aboy; a penetrating philosopher, critic, and historian before the ageof thirty; a statesman of unrivalled moral wisdom; an orator whosespeeches have been read with increasing admiration in every succeedingage; a judge of the fine arts to whose opinions Reynolds submitted;and a writer on various subjects, in which he displayed not only vastknowledge, but which he treated in a style of matchless beauty andforce. All the great men of his age--Johnson, Reynolds, Goldsmith, Garrick, Pitt, Fox, Sheridan, Windham, North, Thurlow, Parr--scholars, critics, divines, and statesmen--bore testimony to his commandinggenius and his singular moral worth, to his hatred of vice, and hispassionate love of virtue. But these great and varied excellences, which secured him the veneration of the finest minds in Europe, werenot fully appreciated by his own nation, which was astonished ratherthan governed by his prophetic wisdom. But Burke was remarkable, notmerely for his knowledge, eloquence, and genius but also for anunblemished private life, for the habitual exercise of all thosevirtues, and the free expression of all those noble sentiments whichonly have marked exalted Christian characters. In his politicalprinciples, he was a conservative, and preferred to base his views onhistory and experience, rather than to try experiments, especiallywhen these were advocated by men whose moral character or infidelsentiments excited his distrust or aversion. He did not shut his eyesto abuse, but aimed to mend deliberately and cautiously. Hisadmonition to his country respecting America corresponded with hisgeneral sentiments. "Talk not of your abstract rights of government; Ihate the very sound of them; follow experience and common sense. " Hebelieved that love was better than force, and that the strength of anygovernment consisted in the affections of the people. And these heever strove to retain, and for these he was willing to relinquishmomentary gain and selfish aggrandizement. He advocated concession tothe Irish legislature; justice and security to the people of India;liberty of conscience to Dissenters; relief to small debtors; thesuppression of general warrants; the extension of the power of juries;freedom of the press; retrenchment in the public expenditures; theremoval of commercial restrictions; and the abolition of the slavetrade. He had a great contempt for "mechanical politicians, " and"pedler principles. " And he lived long enough to see the fulfilment ofhis political prophecies, and the horrors of that dreadful revolutionwhich he had predicted and disliked, not because the principles whichthe French apostles of liberty advocated, were not abstractedly true, but because they were connected with excesses, and an infidelrecklessness in the violation of established social rights, whichalarmed and disgusted him. He died in 1797, in the sixty-eighth yearof his age, beloved and honored by the good and great in all Christiancountries. 

[Sidenote: Charles James Fox. ]

Next to Burke, among the prosecutors of Hastings, for greatness andpopularity, was Charles James Fox; inferior to Burke in knowledge, imagination, and moral power, but superior in all the arts of debate, the most logical and accomplished forensic orator which that age oforators produced. His father, Lord Holland, had been the rival of thegreat Chatham, and he himself was opposed, nearly the whole of hispublic life, to the younger Pitt. His political principles were likethose of Burke until the French Revolution, whose principles he atfirst admired. He was emphatically the man of the people, easy ofaccess, social in his habits, free in his intercourse, without reserveor haughtiness, generous, magnanimous, and conciliatory. He wasunsurpassed for logical acuteness, and for bursts of overpoweringpassion. He reached high political station, although his habits weresuch as destroyed, in many respects, the respect of those great menwith whom he was associated. 

[Sidenote: Richard Brinsley Sheridan. ]

Richard Brinsley Sheridan, another of the public accusers of Hastings, was a different man from either Burke or Fox. He was born in Ireland, but was educated at Harrow, and first distinguished himself by writingplays. In 1776, on the retirement of Garrick, he became manager ofDrury Lane Theatre; and shortly after appeared the School for Scandal, which placed him on the summit of dramatic fame. In 1780, he enteredparliament, and, when Hastings was impeached, was in the height of hisreputation, both as a writer and orator. His power consisted inbrilliant declamation and sparkling wit, and his speech in relation tothe Princesses of Oude produced an impression almost without aparallel in ancient or modern times. Mr. Burke's admiration wassincere and unbounded, but Fox thought it too florid and rhetorical. His fame now rests on his dramas. But his life was the shipwreck ofgenius, in consequence of his extravagance, his recklessness inincurring debts, and his dissipated habits, which disorganized hismoral character and undermined the friendships which his brillianttalents at first secured to him. 

But in spite of the indignation which these illustrious oratorsexcited against Hastings, he was nevertheless acquitted, after a trialwhich lasted eight years, in consequence of the change of publicopinion; and, above all, in view of the great services which he hadreally rendered to his country. The expenses of the trial nearlyruined him; but the East India Company granted him an annual income offour thousand pounds, which he spent in ornamenting and enrichingDaylesford, the seat which had once belonged to his family, and whichhe purchased after his return from India. 

[Sidenote: Bill for the Regulation of India. ]

Although Warren Hastings was eventually acquitted by the House ofLords, still his long and protracted trial brought to light many evilsconnected with the government of India; and, in 1784, acts were passedwhich gave the nation a more direct control over the East IndiaCompany--the most gigantic monopoly the world has ever seen. That acompany of merchants in Leadenhall Street should exercise an unlimitedpower over an empire larger than the whole of Europe with theexception of Russia, and sacrifice the interests of humanity to basepecuniary considerations, at length aroused the English nation. Accordingly, Mr. Pitt brought in a bill, which passed both Houses, which provided that the affairs of the company should be partlymanaged by a Board of Control, partly by the Court of Directors, andpartly by a general meeting of the stockholders of the company. TheBoard of Control was intrusted to five privy counsellors, one of whomwas secretary of state. It was afterwards composed of a president, such members of the privy council as the king should select, and asecretary. This board superintends and regulates all civil, military, and revenue officers, and political negotiations, and all generaldespatches. The Board of Directors, composed of twenty-four men, sixof whom are annually elected, has the nomination of thegovernor-general, and the appointment of all civil and militaryofficers. These two boards operate as a check against each other. 

The first governor-general, by the new constitution, was LordCornwallis, a nobleman of great military experience and elevated moralworth; a man who was intrusted with great power, even after hismisfortunes in America, and a man who richly deserved the confidencereposed in him. Still, he was seldom fortunate. He made blunders inIndia as well as in America. He did not fully understand theinstitutions of India, or the genius of the people. He was soon calledto embark in the contests which divided the different native princes, and with the usual result. The simple principle of English territorialacquisition is, in defending the cause of the feebler party. Thestronger party was then conquered, and became a province of the EastIndia Company, while the weaker remained under English protection, until, by oppression, injustice, and rapacity on the part of theprotectors, it was driven to rebellion, and then subdued. 

When Lord Cornwallis was sent to India, in 1786, the East IndiaCompany had obtained possession of Bengal, a part of Bahar, theBenares district of Allahabad, part of Orissa, the Circars, Bombay, and the Jaghire of the Carnatic--a district of one hundred miles alongthe coast. The other great Indian powers, unconquered by the English, were the Mahrattas, who occupied the centre of India, from Delhi tothe Krishna, and from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea; also, Golconda, the western parts of the Carnatic, Mysore, Oude, and thecountry of the Sikhs. Of the potentates who ruled over these extensiveprovinces, the Sultan of Mysore, Tippoo Saib, was the most powerful, although the Mahrattas country was the largest. 

[Sidenote: War with Tippoo Saib. ]

The hostility of Tippoo, who inherited his father's prejudices againstthe English, excited the suspicions of Lord Cornwallis, and adesperate war was the result, in which the sultan showed the mostdaring courage. In 1792, the English general invested the formidablefortress of Seringapatam, with sixteen thousand Europeans and thirtythousand sepoys, and with the usual success. Tippoo, after the loss ofthis strong fort, and of twenty-three thousand of his troops, madepeace with Lord Cornwallis, by the payment of four millions of pounds, and the surrender of half his dominions. Lord Cornwallis, after theclose of this war, returned home, and was succeeded by Sir John Shore;and he by Marquis Wellesley, (1798, ) under whose administration thewar with Tippoo was renewed, in consequence of the intrigues of thesultan with the French at Pondicherry, to regain his dominions. TheSultan of Mysore, was again defeated, and slain; the dynasty of HyderAli ceased to reign, and the East India Company took possession of thewhole southern peninsula. A subsequent war with the Mahratta powerscompletely established the British supremacy in India. Delhi, thecapital of the Great Mogul, fell into the hands of the English, andthe emperor himself became a stipendiary of a company of merchants. The conquest of the country of the Mahrattas was indeed successful, but was attended by vast expenses, which entailed a debt on thecompany of about nineteen millions of pounds. The brilliant successesof Wellesley, however, were not appreciated by the Board of Directors, who wanted dividends rather than glory, and he was recalled. 

[Sidenote: Conquest of India. ]

There were no new conquests until 1817, under the government of theEarl of Moira, afterwards Marquis of Hastings. He made war on thePindarries, who were bands of freebooters in Central India. They wereassisted by several native powers, which induced the governor-generalto demand considerable cessions of territory. In 1819, the Britisheffected a settlement at Singapore by which a lucrative commerce wassecured to Great Britain. 

Lord Hastings was succeeded by the Earl of Amherst, under whoseadministration the Burmese war commenced, and by which largeterritories, between Bengal and China, were added to the Britishempire, (1826. )

On the overthrow of the Mogul empire, the kingdom of the Sikhs, in thenorthern part of India, and that of the Affghans, lying west of theIndus, arose in importance--kingdoms formerly subject to Persia. Theformer, with all its dependent provinces, has recently been conquered, and annexed to the overgrown dominions of the Company. 

In 1833, the charter of the East India Company expired, and a totalchange of system was the result. The company was deprived of itsexclusive right of trade, the commerce with India and China was freelyopened to all the world, and the possessions and rights of the companywere ceded to the nation for an annual annuity of six hundred andthirty thousand pounds. The political government of India, however, was continued to the company until 1853. 

[Sidenote: Consequences of the Conquest. ]

Thus has England come in possession of one of the oldest and mostpowerful of the Oriental empires, containing a population of onehundred and thirty millions of people, speaking various languages, andwedded irrecoverably to different social and religious institutions. The conquest of India is complete, and there is not a valuable officein the whole country which is not held by an Englishman. The nativeand hereditary princes of provinces, separately larger and morepopulous than Great Britain itself, are divested of all but the shadowof power, and receive stipends from the East India Company. TheEmperor of Delhi, the Nabobs of Bengal and the Carnatic, the Rajahs ofTanjore and Benares, and the Princes of the house of Tippoo, and otherprinces, receive, indeed, an annual support of over a millionsterling; but their power has passed away. An empire two thousandmiles from east to west, and eighteen hundred from north to south, andcontaining more square miles than a territory larger than all theStates between the Mississippi and the Atlantic Ocean, has fallen intothe hands of the Anglo-Saxon race. It is true that a considerable partof Hindostan is nominally held by subsidiary allies, under theprotection of the British government; but the moment that thesedependent princes cease to be useful, this protection will bewithdrawn. There can be no reasonable doubt that the English rule isbeneficent in many important respects. Order and law are betterobserved than formerly under the Mohammedan dynasty; but nocompensation is sufficient, in the eyes of the venerable Brahmin, forinterference in the laws and religion of the country. India has beenrobbed by the armies of European merchants, and is only held inbondage by an overwhelming military force, which must be felt asburdensome and expensive when the plundered country shall no longersatisfy the avarice of commercial corporations. But that day may beremote. Calcutta now rivals in splendor and importance the old capitalof the Great Mogul. The palace of the governor-general is larger thanWindsor Castle or Buckingham Palace; the stupendous fortifications ofFort William rival the fortress of Gibraltar; the Anglo-Indian armyamounts to two hundred thousand men; while the provinces of India aretaxed, directly or indirectly, to an amount exceeding eighteenmillions of pounds per annum. It is idle to speculate on the destiniesof India, or the duration of the English power. The future is everfull of gloom, when scarcely any thing is noticeable but injustice andoppression on the part of rulers, and poverty and degradation amongthe governed. It is too much to suppose that one hundred and eightymillions of the human race can be permanently governed by a power onthe opposite side of the globe, and where there never can exist anyunion or sympathy between the nation that rules and the nations thatare ruled, in any religious, social, or political institution; andwhen all that is dear to the heart of man, and all that is consecratedby the traditions of ages, are made to subserve the interests of amercantile state. 

But it is time to hasten to the consideration of the remainingsubjects connected with the administration of William Pitt. 

The agitations of moral reformers are among the most prominent andinteresting. The efforts of benevolent statesmen and philanthropiststo abolish the slave trade produced a great excitement throughoutChristendom, and were followed by great results. 

In 1787, William Wilberforce, who represented the great county ofYork, brought forward, in the House of Commons, a motion for theabolition of the slave trade. The first public movements to put a stopto this infamous traffic were made by the Quakers in the SouthernStates of America, who presented petitions for that purpose to theirrespective legislatures. Their brethren in England followed theirexample, and presented similar petitions to the House of Commons. Asociety was formed, and a considerable sum was raised to collectinformation relative to the traffic, and to support the expense ofapplication to parliament. A great resistance was expected and made, chiefly by merchants and planters. Mr. Wilberforce interested himselfgreatly in this investigation, and in May brought the matter beforeparliament, and supported his motion with overwhelming arguments andeloquence. Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Whitbreadsupported Mr. Wilberforce. Mr. Pitt defended the cause of abolitionwith great eloquence and power; but the House was not then in favor ofimmediate abolition, nor was it carried until Mr. Fox and his friendscame into power. 

[Sidenote: War with France. ]

The war with France, in consequence of the progress of the revolution, is too great a subject to be treated except in a chapter by itself. Mr. Pitt abstained from all warlike demonstrations until the internaltranquillity of England itself was affected by the propagation ofrevolutionary principles. But when, added to these, it was feared thatthe French were resolved to extend their empire, and overturn thebalance of power, and encroach on the liberties of England, then Pitt, sustained by an overwhelming majority in parliament, declared war uponFrance, (1793. ) The advocates of the French Revolution, however, takedifferent views, and attribute the rise and career of Napoleon to thejealousy and encroachments of England herself, as well as of Austriaand Prussia. Whether the general European war might not have beenaverted, is a point which merits inquiry, and on which Britishstatesmen are not yet agreed. But the connection of England with thisgreat war will be presented in the following chapter. 

Mr. Pitt continued to manage the helm of state until 1806; but all hisenergies were directed to the prosecution of the war, and no otherevents of importance took place during his administration. 

[Sidenote: Policy of Pitt. ]

His genius most signally was displayed in his financial skill inextricating his nation from the great embarrassments which resultedfrom the American war, and in providing the means to prosecute stillmore expensive campaigns against Napoleon and his generals. He alsohad unrivalled talent in managing the House of Commons against one ofthe most powerful oppositions ever known, and in a period of greatpublic excitements. He was always ready in debate, and always retainedthe confidence of the nation. He is probably the greatest of theEnglish statesmen, so far as talents are concerned, and so far as herepresented the ideas and sentiments of his age. But it is a questionwhich will long perplex philosophers whether he was the wisest of thatgreat constellation of geniuses who enlightened his brilliant age. Tohim may be ascribed the great increase of the national debt. If taxesare the greatest calamity which can afflict a nation, then Pitt hasentailed a burden of misery which will call forth eternal curses onhis name, in spite of all the brilliancy of his splendidadministration. But if the glory and welfare of nations consist inother things--in independence, patriotism, and rational liberty; if itwas desirable, above all material considerations, to check the currentof revolutionary excess, and oppose the career of a man who aimed tobring all the kings and nations of Europe under the yoke of anabsolute military despotism, and rear a universal empire on the ruinsof ancient monarchies and states, --then Pitt and his government shouldbe contemplated in a different light. 

That mighty contest which developed the energies of this greatstatesman, as well as the genius of a still more remarkable man, therefore claims our attention. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Tomline's Life of Pitt. Belsham's History of George III. Prior's and Bissett's Lives of Burke. Moore's Life of Sheridan. Walpole's Life of Fox. Life of Wilberforce, by his sons. Annual Register, from 1783 to 1806. Macaulay's Essay on Warren Hastings. Elphinstone's and Martin's Histories of India. Mill's British India. Russell's Modern Europe. Correspondence of Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke. Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors. Boswell's Life of Johnson. Burke's Works. Schlosser's Modern History. 

CHAPTER XXX. 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 

If the American war was the greatest event in modern times, in view ofultimate results, the French Revolution may be considered the mostexciting and interesting to the eye of contemporaries. The wars whichgrew out of the Revolution in France were conducted on a scale of muchgreater magnitude, and embroiled all the nations of Europe. A greaterexpenditure of energies took place than from any contest in the annalsof civilized nations. Nor has any contest ever before developed sogreat military genius. Napoleon stands at the head of his profession, by general consent; and it is probable that his fame will increase, rather than diminish, with advancing generations. 

It is impossible to describe, in a few pages, the great and variedevents connected with the French Revolution, or even allude to all theprominent ones. The causes of this great movement are even moreinteresting than the developments. 

[Sidenote: Causes of the French Revolution. ]

The question is often asked, could Louis XVI. Have prevented thecatastrophe which overturned his throne? He might, perhaps, havedelayed it; but it was an inevitable event, and would have happened, sooner or later. There were evils in the government of France, and inthe condition of the people, so overwhelming and melancholy, that theywould have produced an outbreak. Had Richelieu never been minister;had the Fronde never taken place; had Louis XIV. And XV. Neverreigned; had there been no such women as disgraced the court of Francein the eighteenth century; had there been no tyrannical kings, nooppressive nobles, no grievous taxes, no national embarrassments, noluxurious courts, no infidel writings, and no discontentedpeople, --then Louis XVI. Might have reigned at Versailles, asLouis XV. Had done before him. But the accumulated grievances of twocenturies called imperatively for redress, and nothing short of arevolution could have removed them. 

Now, what were those evils and those circumstances which, ofnecessity, produced the most violent revolutionary storm in the annalsof the world? The causes of the French revolution may be generalizedunder five heads: First, the influence of the writings of infidelphilosophers; second, the diffusion of the ideas of popular rights;third, the burdens of the people, which made these abstract ideas ofright a mockery; fourth, the absurd infatuation of the court andnobles; fifth, the derangement of the finances, which clogged thewheels of government, and led to the assembling of the States General. There were also other causes: but the above mentioned are the mostprominent. 

[Sidenote: Helvetius--Voltaire. ]

Of those philosophers whose writings contributed to produce thisrevolution, there were four who exerted a remarkable influence. Thesewere Helvetius, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot. 

Helvetius was a man of station and wealth, and published, in 1758, abook, in which he carried out the principles of Condillac and of otherphilosophers of the sensational, or, as it is sometimes called, thesensuous school. He boldly advocated a system of undisguisedselfishness. He maintained that man owed his superiority over thelower animals to the superior organization of the body. Proceedingfrom this point, he asserted, further, that every faculty and emotionare derived from sensation; that all minds are originally equal; thatpleasure is the only good, and self-interest the only ground ofmorality. The materialism of Helvetius was the mere revival of paganEpicurianism; but it was popular, and his work, called _De l'Esprit_, made a great sensation. It was congenial with the taste of a court anda generation that tolerated Madame de Pompadour. But the Parliament ofParis condemned it, and pronounced it derogatory to human nature, inasmuch as it confined our faculties to animal sensibility, anddestroyed the distinctions between virtue and vice. 

His fame was eclipsed by the brilliant career of Voltaire, whoexercised a greater influence on his age than any other man. He is thegreat apostle of French infidelity, and the great oracle of thesuperficial thinkers of his nation and age. He was born in 1694, andearly appeared upon the stage. He was a favorite at Versailles, and acompanion of Frederic the Great--as great an egotist as he, though hisegotism was displayed in a different way. He was an aristocrat, madefor courts, and not for the people, with whom he had no sympathy, although the tendency of his writings was democratic. In all hissatirical sallies, he professed to respect authority. But he was neverin earnest, was sceptical, insincere, and superficial. It would not berendering him justice to deny that he had great genius. But his geniuswas to please, to amuse a vain-glorious people, to turn every thinginto ridicule, to pull down, and substitute nothing instead. He was amodern Lucian, and his satirical mockery destroyed reverence for Godand truth. He despised and defied the future, and the future hasrendered a verdict which can never be reversed--that he was vain, selfish, shallow, and cold, without faith in any spiritual influenceto change the world. But he had a keen perception of what was false, with all his superficial criticism, a perception of what is now called_humbug_; and it cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, he had alove of truth, but not of truth in its highest development, not of thepositive, the affirmative, the real. Negation and denial suited himbetter, and suited the age in which he lived better; hence he was a"representative man, " was an exponent of his age, and led the age. Hehated the Jesuits, but chiefly because they advocated a blindauthority; and he strove to crush Christianity, because its professorsso often were a disgrace to it, while its best members were martyrsand victims. Voltaire did not, like Helvetius, propose any new systemof philosophy, but strove to make all systems absurd. He set the ballof Atheism in motion, and others followed in a bolder track: pushedout, not his principles, for he had none, but his spirit, into theextreme of mockery and negation. And such a course unsettled thepopular faith, both in religion and laws, and made men indifferent tothe future, and to their moral obligations. 

[Sidenote: Rousseau. ]

Quite a different man was Rousseau. He was not a mocker, or aleveller, or a satirist, or an atheist. He resembled Voltaire only inone respect--in egotism. He was not so learned as Voltaire, did notwrite so much, was not so highly honored or esteemed. But he had moregenius, and exercised a greater influence on posterity. His influencewas more subtle and more dangerous, for he led astray people ofgenerous impulses and enthusiastic dispositions, with but littleintelligence or experience. He abounded in extravagant admiration ofunsophisticated nature, professed to love the simple and earnest, affected extraordinary friendship and sympathy, and was mostenthusiastic in his rhapsodies of sentimental love. Voltaire had nocant, but Rousseau was full of it. Voltaire was the father of Danton, but Rousseau of Robespierre, that sentimental murderer who as a judge, was too conscientious to hang a criminal, but sufficientlyunscrupulous to destroy a king. The absurdities of Rousseau can bedetected in the ravings of the ultra Transcendentalists, in theextravagance of Fourierism, in the mock philanthropy of such apostlesof light as Eugene Sue and Louis Blanc. The whole mental and physicalconstitution of Rousseau was diseased, and his actions were strangelyinconsistent with his sentiments. He gave the kiss of friendship, andit proved the token of treachery; he expatiated on simplicity andearnestness in most bewitching language, but was a hypocrite, seducer, and liar. He was always breathing the raptures of affection, yet neversucceeded in keeping a friend; he was always denouncing theselfishness and vanity of the world, and yet was miserable without itsrewards and praises; no man was more dependent on society, yet no manever professed to hold it in deeper contempt; no man ever had aprouder spirit, yet no man ever affected a more abject humility. Hedilated, with apparent rapture, on disinterested love, and yet lefthis own children to cold neglect and poverty. He poisoned the weak andthe susceptible by pouring out streams of passion in eloquent andexciting language, under the pretence of unburdening his own soul andrevealing his own sorrows. He was always talking about philanthropyand generosity, and yet seldom bestowed a charity. No man was evermore eloquent in paradox, or sublime in absurdity. He spent his lifein gilding what is corrupt, and glossing over what is impure. Thegreat moral effect of his writings was to make men commit crimes underthe name of patriotism, and permit them to indulge in selfish passionunder the name of love. 

[Sidenote: Diderot. ]

But more powerful than either of these false prophets and guides, inimmediate influence, was Diderot; and with him the whole school ofbold and avowed infidels, who united open atheism with a fiercedemocracy. The Encyclopedists professed to know every thing, toexplain every thing, and to teach every thing, they discovered thatthere was no God, and taught that truth was a delusion, and virtue buta name. They were learned in mathematical, statistical, and physicalscience, but threw contempt on elevated moral wisdom, on the lessonsof experience, and the eternal truths of divine revelation. Theyadvocated changes, experiments, fomentations, and impracticablereforms. They preached a gospel of social rights, inflamed the peoplewith disgust of their condition, and with the belief that wisdom andvirtue resided, in the greatest perfection, with congregated masses. 

[Sidenote: General Influence of the Philosophers. ]

They incessantly boasted of the greatness of philosophy, and theobsolete character of Christianity. They believed that successivedevelopments of human nature, without the aid of influences foreign toitself, would gradually raise society to a state of perfection. Whatthey could not explain by their logical formularies, they utterlydiscarded. They denied the reality of a God in heaven, and talkedabout the divinity of man on earth, especially when associated massesof the ignorant and brutal asserted what they conceived to be theirrights. They made truth to reside, in its greatest lustre, withpassionate majorities; and virtue, in its purest radiance, with felonsand vagabonds, if affiliated into a great association. They flatteredthe people that they were wiser and better than any classes abovethem, that rulers were tyrants, the clergy were hypocrites, theoracles of former days mere fools and liars. To sum up, in few words, the French Encyclopedists, "they made Nature, in her outwardmanifestations, to be the foundation of all great researches, man tobe but a mass of organization, mind the development of our sensations, morality to consist in self-interest, and God to be but the diseasedfiction of an unenlightened age. The whole intellect, beingconcentrated on the outward and material, gave rise, perhaps, to someimprovements in physical science; but religion was disowned, moralitydegraded, and man made to be but the feeble link in the great chain ofevents by which Nature is inevitably accomplishing her blind designs. "From such influences, what could we expect but infidelity, madness, anarchy, and crimes?

The second cause of the French revolution was the diffusion of theideas of democratic liberty. Rousseau was a republican in hispolitics, as he was a sentimentalist in religion. Thomas Paine's Ageof Reason had a great influence on the French mind, as it also had onthe English and American. Moreover, the apostles of liberty in Francewere much excited in view of the success of the American Revolution, and fancied that the words "popular liberty, " "sovereignty of thepeople, " the "rights of man, " "liberty and equality, " meant the samein America as they did when pronounced by a Parisian mob. The Frenchpeople were unduly flattered, and made to believe, by the demagogues, that they were philosophers, and that they were as fit for liberty asthe American nation itself. Moreover, it must be confessed that thepeople had really made considerable advances, and discovered thatthere was no right or justice in the oppressions under which theygroaned. The exhortations of popular leaders and the example ofAmerican patriots prepared the people to make a desperate effort toshake off their fetters. What were rights, in the abstract, if theywere to be ground down to the dust? What a mockery was the watchwordof liberty and equality, if they were obliged to submit to a despotismwhich they knew to be, in the highest degree, oppressive andtyrannical?

[Sidenote: Sufferings of the People. ]

Hence the real and physical evils which the people of France endured, had no small effect in producing the revolution. Abstract ideasprepared the way, and sustained the souls of the oppressed; but theabsolute burdens which they bore aroused them to resistance. 

[Sidenote: Degradation of the People. ]

These evils were so great, that general discontent prevailed among themiddle and lower classes through the kingdom. The agriculturalpopulation was fettered by game laws and odious privileges to thearistocracy. "Game of the most destructive kind, such as wild boarsand herds of deer, were permitted to go at large through spaciousdistricts, in order that the nobles might hunt as in a savagewilderness. " Numerous edicts prohibited weeding, lest young partridgesshould be disturbed, and mowing of hay even, lest their eggs should bedestroyed. Complaints for the infraction of these edicts were carriedbefore courts where every species of oppression and fraud prevailed. Fines were imposed at every change of property and at every sale. Thepeople were compelled to grind their corn at their landlord's mill, topress their grapes in his press, and bake their bread in his oven. Inconsequence of these feudal laws and customs, the people were verypoor, their houses dark and comfortless, their dress ragged andmiserable, their food coarse and scanty. Not half of the enormoustaxes which they paid reached the royal treasury, or even the pocketsof the great proprietors. Officers were indefinitely multiplied. Thegoverning classes looked upon the people only to be robbed. Their crywas unheard in the courts of justice, while the tear of sorrow wasunnoticed amid the pageantry of the great, whose extravagance, insolence, and pride were only surpassed by the misery and degradationof those unfortunate beings on whose toils they lived. Justice wasbought and sold like any other commodity, and the decisions of judgeswere influenced by the magnitude of the bribes which were offeredthem. Besides feudal taxes, the clergy imposed additional burdens, andswarmed wherever there was plunder to be obtained. The people were soextravagantly taxed that it was no object to be frugal or industrious. Every thing beyond the merest necessaries of life was seized byvarious tax-gatherers. In England, severe as is taxation, threefourths of the produce of the land go to the farmer, while in Franceonly one twelfth went to the poor peasant. Two thirds of his earningswent to the king. Nor was there any appeal from this excessivetaxation, which ground down the middle and lower classes, while theclergy and the nobles were entirely exempted themselves. Nor did therich proprietor live upon his estates. He was a non-resident, andsquandered in the cities the money which was extorted from hisdependents. He took no interest in the condition of the peasantry, with whom he was not united by any common ties. Added to thisoppression, the landlord was cruel, haughty, and selfish; and heirritated by his insolence as well as oppressed by his injustice. Allsituations in the army, the navy, the church, the court, the bench, and in diplomacy were exclusively filled by the aristocracy, of whomthere were one hundred and fifty thousand people--a class insolent, haughty, effeminate, untaxed; who disdained useful employments, whosought to live by the labor of others, and who regarded those by whosetoils they were enabled to lead lives of dissipation and pleasure, asignoble minions, who were unworthy of a better destiny, and unfit toenjoy those rights which God designed should be possessed by the wholehuman race. 

The privileges and pursuits of the aristocratic class, from the kingto a lieutenant in his army, were another cause of revolution. Louis XV. Squandered twenty million pounds sterling in pleasures tooignominious to be even named in the public accounts, and enjoyedalmost absolute power. He could send any one in his dominions to rotin an ignominious prison, without a hearing or a trial. The odious_lettre de cachet_ could consign the most powerful noble to a dungeon, and all were sent to prison who were offensive to government. Theking's mistresses sometimes had the power of sending their enemies toprison without consulting the king. The lives and property of thepeople were at his absolute disposal, and he did not scruple toexercise his power with thoughtless, and sometimes inhuman cruelty. 

[Sidenote: Derangement of Finances. ]

But these evils would have ended only in disaffection, and hatred, andunsuccessful resistance, had not the royal finances been deranged. Solong as the king and his ministers could obtain money, there was noimmediate danger of revolution. So long as he could pay the army, itwould, if decently treated, support an absolute throne. 

But the king at last found it difficult to raise a sufficient revenuefor his pleasures and his wars. The annual deficit was one hundred andninety million of francs a year. The greater the deficit, the greaterwas the taxation, which, of course, increased the popular discontent. 

Such was the state of things when Louis XVI. Ascended the throne ofHugh Capet, (1774, ) in his twentieth year, having married, four yearsbefore, Marie Antoinette, daughter of Maria Theresa, empress ofAustria. He was grandson of Louis XV. , who bequeathed to him a debt offour thousand millions of livres. 

The new king was amiable and moral, and would have ruled France inpeaceful times, but was unequal to a revolutionary crisis. "Of all themonarchs, " says Alison, "of the Capetian line, he was the least ableto stem, and yet the least likely to provoke, a revolution. The peoplewere tired of the arbitrary powers of their monarch, and he wasdisposed to abandon them; they were provoked at the expensivecorruptions of the court, and he was both innocent in his manners, andunexpensive in his habits; they demanded reformation in theadministration of affairs, and he placed his chief glory in yieldingto the public voice. His reign, from his accession to the throne tothe meeting of the States General, was nothing but a series ofameliorations, without calming the public effervescence. He had themisfortune to wish sincerely for the public good, without possessingthe firmness necessary to secure it; and with truth it may be saidthat reforms were more fatal to him than the continuance of abuseswould have been to another sovereign. "

[Sidenote: Maurepas--Turgot--Malesherbes. ]

He made choice of Maurepas as his prime minister, an old courtierwithout talent, and who was far from comprehending the spirit of thenation or the genius of the times. He accustomed the king to halfmeasures, and pursued a temporizing policy, ill adapted torevolutionary times. The discontents of the people induced the king todismiss him, and Turgot, for whom the people clamored, became primeminister. He was an honest man, and contemplated important reforms, even to the abolition of feudal privileges and the odious _lettres decachet_, which were of course opposed by the old nobility, and werenot particularly agreeable to the sovereign himself. 

Malesherbes, a lawyer who adopted the views of Turgot, succeeded him, and, had he been permitted, would have restored the rights of thepeople, and suppressed the _lettres de cachet_, reënacted the Edict ofNantes, and secured the liberty of the press. But he was not equal tothe crisis, with all his integrity and just views, and Necker becamefinancial minister. 

[Sidenote: Necker--Calonne. ]

He was a native of Geneva, a successful banker, and a man who had wonthe confidence of the nation. He found means to restore the finances, and to defray the expenses of the American war. But he was equallyopposed by the nobles, who wanted no radical reform, and he was not aman of sufficient talent to stem the current of revolution. Financialskill was certainly desirable, but no financiering could save theFrench nation on the eve of bankruptcy with such vast expenditures asthen were deemed necessary. The nobles indeed admitted the extent ofthe evils which existed, and descanted, on their hunting parties, in astrain of mock philanthropy, but would submit to no sacrificesthemselves, and Necker was compelled to resign. 

M. De Calonne took his place; a man of ready invention, unscrupulous, witty, and brilliant. Self-confident and full of promises, hesucceeded in imparting a gleam of sunshine, and pursued a plandirectly the opposite to that adopted by Necker. He encouraged theextravagance of the court, derided the future, and warded off pressingdebts by contracting new ones. He pleased all classes by hiscaptivating manners, brilliant conversation, and elegant dress. Theking, furnished with what money he wanted, forgot the burdens of thepeople, and the minister went on recklessly contracting new loans, andstudiously concealing from the public the extent of the annualdeficit. 

But such a policy could not long be adopted successfully, and thepeople were overwhelmed with amazement when it finally appeared that, since the retirement of Necker in 1781, Calonne had added sixteenhundred and forty-six millions of francs to the public debt. Nationalbankruptcy stared every body in the face. It was necessary that anextraordinary movement should be made; and Calonne recommended theassembling of the Notables, a body composed chiefly of the nobility, clergy, and magistracy, with the hope that these aristocrats wouldconsent to their own taxation. 

He was miserably mistaken. The Notables met, (1787, ) the first timesince the reign of Henry IV. , and demanded the dismissal of theminister, who was succeeded by Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. 

He was a weak man, and owed his elevation to his influence with women. He won the queen by his pleasing conversation, but had no solidacquirements. Occupying one of the highest positions in his church, heyet threw himself into the arms of atheistical philosophers. A man soinconsistent and so light was not fit for his place. 

However, the Notables agreed to what they had refused to Calonne. Theyconsented to a land tax, to the stamp duty, to provincial assemblies, and to the suppression of the gratuitous service of vassals. Thesewere popular measures, but were insufficient. Brienne was under thenecessity of proposing the imposition of new taxes. But the Parliamentof Paris refused to register the edict. A struggle between the kingand the parliament resulted; and the king, in order to secure theregistration of new taxes, resorted to the _bed of justice_--the laststretch of his royal power. 

[Sidenote: States General. ]

During one of the meetings of the parliament, when the abuses andprodigality of the court were denounced, a member, punning upon theword _états_, (statements, ) exclaimed, "It is not statements butStates General that we want. "

From that moment, nothing was thought of or talked about but theassembling of the States General; to which the minister, from hisincreasing embarrassments, consented. Moreover, the court hoped, inview of the continued opposition of the parliament, that the TiersÉtat would defend the throne against the legal aristocracy. 

All classes formed great and extravagant expectations from theassembling of the States General, and all were doomed todisappointment, but none more than those who had most vehemently andenthusiastically called for its convocation. 

The Archbishop of Toulouse soon after retired, unable to stem therevolutionary current. But he contrived to make his own fortune, bysecuring benefices to the amount of eight hundred thousand francs, thearchbishopric of Sens, and a cardinal's hat. At his recommendationNecker was recalled. 

On Necker's return, he found only two hundred and fifty thousandfrancs in the royal treasury; but the funds immediately rose, thirtyper cent. , and he was able to secure the loans necessary to carry onthe government, rich capitalists fearing that absolute ruin wouldresult unless they came to his assistance. 

Then followed discussions in reference to the Tiers État, as to whatthe third estate really represented, and as to the number of deputieswho should be called to the assembly of the States General. "The TiersÉtat, " said the Abbé Sièyes, in an able pamphlet, "is the Frenchnation, _minus_ the noblesse and the clergy. "

It was at last decided that the assembly should be at least onethousand, and that the number of deputies should equal therepresentatives of the nobles and clergy. The elections, werecarelessly conducted, and all persons, decently dressed, were allowedto vote. Upwards of three millions of electors determined the choiceof deputies. Necker conceded too much, and opened the flood-gates ofrevolution. He had no conception of the storm, which was to overwhelmthe throne. 

On the 4th of May, 1789, that famous Assembly, which it was hopedwould restore prosperity to France, met with great pomp in thecathedral church of Notre Dame, and the Bishop of Nancy delivered thesermon, and, the next day, the assembly was opened in the hallprepared for the occasion. The king was seated on a magnificentthrone, the nobles and the clergy on both sides of the hall, and thethird estate at the farther end. Louis XVI. Pronounced a speech fullof disinterested sentiments, and Necker read a report in reference tothe state of the finances. 

[Sidenote: The Tiers État. ]

The next day, the deputies of the Tiers État were directed to theplace allotted to them, which was the common hall. The nobles andclergy repaired to a separate hall. It was their intention, especiallyin view of the great number of the deputies, to deliberate in distincthalls. But the deputies insisted upon the three orders deliberatingtogether in the same room. Angry discussions and conferences tookplace. But there was not sufficient union between the nobles and theclergy, or sufficient energy on the part of the court. There happenedalso to be some bold and revolutionary spirits among the deputies, andthey finally resolved, by a majority of four hundred and ninety-one toninety, to assume the title of _National Assembly_, and invited themembers of the other chamber to join them. They erected themselvesinto a sovereign power, like the Long Parliament of Charles I. , disregarding both the throne and the nobility. 

Some of the most resolute of the nobles urged the king to adoptvigorous measures against the usurpation of the third estate; but hewas timid and irresolute. 

The man who had, at that time, the greatest influence in the NationalAssembly was Mirabeau, a man of noble birth, but who had warmlyespoused the popular side. He was disagreeable in his features, licentious in his habits, and a bankrupt in reputation, but a man ofcommanding air, of great abilities, and unrivalled eloquence. Hispicture has been best painted by Carlyle, both in his essays and hishistory of the revolution. 

The National Assembly contained many great men, who would never havebeen heard of in quiet times; some of great virtues and abilities, andothers of the most violent revolutionary principles. There were alsosome of the nobility, who joined them, not anticipating the evilswhich were to come. Among them were the Dukes of Orleans, Rochefoucault, and Liancourt, Count Lally Tollendal, the two brothersLameth, Clermont Tonnerre, and the Marquis de La Fayette, all of whomwere guillotined or exiled during the revolution. 

[Sidenote: Commotions. ]

The discussions in the Assembly did not equal the tumults of thepeople. All classes were intoxicated with excitement, and believedthat a new era was to take place on earth; that all the evils whichafflicted society were to be removed, and a state of unboundedliberty, plenty, and prosperity, was about to take place. 

In the midst of the popular ferments, the regiment of guards, comprising three thousand six hundred men, revolted: immense bodies ofworkmen assembled together, and gave vent to the most inflammatorylanguage; the Hotel of the Invalids was captured; fifty thousand pikeswere forged and distributed among the people; the Bastile was stormed;and military massacres commenced. Soon after, the tricolored cockadewas adopted, the French guards were suppressed by the Assembly, theking and his family were brought to Paris by a mob, and the Club ofthe Jacobins was established. Before the year 1789 was ended, theNational Assembly was the supreme power in France, and the king hadbecome a shadow and a mockery; or, rather, it should be said thatthere was no authority in France but what emanated from the people, and no power remained to suppress popular excesses and insurrections. The Assembly published proclamations against acts of violence; but itwas committed in a contest with the crown and aristocracy, andespoused the popular side. A famine, added to other horrors, set in atParis; and the farmers, fearing that their grain would be seized, nolonger brought it to market. Manufactures of all kinds were suspended, and the public property was confiscated to supply the immediate wantsof a starving and infuriated people. A state was rapidly hastening touniversal violence, crime, misery, and despair. 

[Sidenote: Rule of the People. ]

The year 1790 opened gloomily, and no one could tell when theagitating spirit would cease, or how far it would be carried, for themob of Paris was rapidly engrossing the power of the state. One of thefirst measures of the Assembly was to divest the provinces of Franceof their ancient privileges, since they were jealous of thesovereignty exercised by the Assembly, and to divide the kingdom intoeighty-four new departments, nearly equal in extent and population. Acriminal tribunal was established for each department and a civilcourt for each of the districts into which the department was divided. The various officers and magistrates were elected by the people, andthe qualification for voting was a contribution to the amount of threedays' labor. By this great stop, the whole civil force in the kingdomwas placed at the disposal of the lower classes. They had thenomination of the municipality, and the control of the military, andthe appointment of judges, deputies, and officers of the NationalGuard. Forty-eight thousand communes, or municipalities, exercised allthe rights of sovereignty, and hardly any appointment was left to thecrown. A complete democratic constitution was made, which subvertedthe ancient divisions of the kingdom, and all those prejudices andinterests which had been nursed for centuries. The great extension ofthe electoral franchise introduced into the Assembly a class of menwho were prepared to make the most impracticable changes, and committhe most violent excesses. 

The next great object of the Assembly was the regulation of thefinances. Further taxation was impossible, and the public necessitieswere great. The revenue had almost failed, and the national debt hadalarmingly increased, --twelve hundred millions in less than threeyears. The capitalists would advance nothing, and voluntarycontributions had produced but a momentary relief. Under thesecircumstances, the spoliation of the church was resolved, andTalleyrand, Bishop of Autun, was the first to propose the confiscationof the property of his order. The temptation was irresistible to aninfidel and revolutionary assembly; for the church owned nearly onehalf of the whole landed property of the kingdom. Several thousandmillions of francs were confiscated, and the revenues of the clergyreduced to one fifth of their former amount. 

This violent measure led to another. There was no money to pay for thegreat estates which the Assembly wished to sell. The municipalities ofthe large cities became the purchasers, and gave promissory notes tothe public creditors until payment should be made; supposing thatindividuals would buy in small portions. Sales not being effected bythe municipalities, as was expected and payment becoming due, recoursewas had to government bills. Thus arose the system of _Assignats_, which were issued to a great amount on the security of the churchlands, and which resulted in a paper circulation, and theestablishment of a vast body of small landholders, whose propertysprung out of the revolution, and whose interests were identified withit. The relief, however great, was momentary. New issues were made atevery crisis, until the over issue alarmed the reflecting portion ofthe community, and assignats depreciated to a mere nominal value. Atthe close of the year, the credit of the nation was destroyed, and theprecious metals were withdrawn, in a great measure, from circulation. 

Soon after, the assembly abolished all titles of nobility, changed thewhole judicial system, declared its right to make peace and war, andestablished the National Guard, by which three hundred thousand menwere enrolled in support of revolutionary measures. 

[Sidenote: National Federation. ]

On the 14th of July, the anniversary of the capture of the Bastile, was the celebrated National Federation, when four hundred thousandpersons repaired to the Champ de Mars, to witness the king, hisministers, the assembly, and the public functionaries, take the oathto the new constitution; the greatest mockery of the whole revolution, although a scene of unparalleled splendor. 

Towards the close of the year, an extensive emigration of the noblestook place; a great blunder on their part, since their estates wereimmediately confiscated, and since the forces left to support thethrone were much diminished. The departure of so many distinguishedpersons, however, displeased the Assembly, and proposals were made toprevent it. But Mirabeau, who, until this time, had supported thepopular side, now joined the throne, and endeavored to save it. Hispopularity was on the decline, when a natural death relieved him froma probable execution. He had contributed to raise the storm, but hehad not the power to allay it. He exerted his splendid abilities toarrest the revolution, whose consequences, at last, he plainlyperceived. But in vain. His death, however, was felt as a publiccalamity, and all Paris assembled to see his remains deposited, withextraordinary pomp, in the Pantheon, by the side of Des Cartes. Had helived, he might possibly have saved the lives of the king and queen, but he could not have prevented the revolution. 

[Sidenote: Flight of the King. ]

Soon after, the royal family, perceiving, too late, that they weremere prisoners in the Tuileries, undertook to escape, and fly toCoblentz, where the great body of emigrants resided. The unfortunateking contrived to reach Varennes, was recognized, and brought back toParis. But the National Assembly made a blunder in not permitting himto escape; for it had only to declare the throne vacant by hisdesertion, and proceed to institute a republican government. The crimeof regicide might have been avoided, and further revolutionaryexcesses prevented. But his return increased the popular ferments, andthe clubs demanded his head. He was suspended from his functions, anda guard placed over his person. 

On the 29th of September, 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolveditself; having, during the three years of its existence enactedthirteen hundred and nine laws and decrees relative to the generaladministration of the state. It is impossible, even now, to settle thequestion whether it did good or ill, on the whole; but it certainlyremoved many great and glaring evils, and enacted many wise laws. Itabolished torture, the _lettres de cachet_, the most oppressiveduties, the privileges of the nobility, and feudal burdens. Itestablished a uniform system of jurisprudence, the National Guards, and an equal system of finance. "It opened the army to men of merit, and divided the landed property of the aristocracy among the laboringclasses; which, though a violation of the rights of property, enabledthe nation to bear the burdens which were subsequently imposed, and toprosper under the evils connected with national bankruptcy, depreciated assignats, the Reign of Terror, the conscription ofNapoleon, and the subjugation of Europe. "

The Legislative Assembly, composed of inexperienced men, --countryattorneys and clerks for the most part, among whom there were notfifty persons possessed of one hundred pounds a year, --took the placeof the Constituent Assembly, and opened its sittings on the 1st ofOctober. 

In the first assembly there was a large party attached to royal andaristocratical interests, and many men of great experience andtalents. But in the second nearly all were in favor of revolutionaryprinciples. They only differed in regard to the extent to whichrevolution should be carried. 

The members of the right were called the _Feuillants_, from the clubwhich formed the centre of their power, and were friends of theconstitution, or the limited monarchy which the Constituent Assemblyhad established. The national guard, the magistrates, and all theconstituted authorities, were the supporters of this party. 

[Sidenote: The Girondists and the Jacobins. ]

The _Girondists_, comprehending the more respectable of therepublicans, and wishing to found the state on the model of antiquity, formed a second party, among whom were numbered the ablest men in theassembly. Brissot, Vergniaud, Condorcet, Guadet, and Isnard, wereamong the leading members. 

There was also a third party, headed by Chabot, Bazin, and Merlin, which was supported by the clubs of the _Jacobins_ and the_Cordeliers_. The great oracles of the Jacobins were Robespierre, Varennes, and Collot d'Herbois; while the leaders of the Cordelierswere Danton and Desmoulins. Robespierre was excluded, as were othersof the last assembly, from the new one, by a sort of self-denyingordinance which he himself had proposed. His influence, at that time, was immense, from the extravagance of his opinions, the vehemence ofhis language, and the reputation he had acquired for integrity. 

Between these three parties there were violent contentions, and thestruggle for ascendency soon commenced, to end in the complete triumphof the Jacobinical revolutionists. 

In the mean time, the restrictions imposed on the king, who stillenjoyed the shadow of authority, the extent of popular excesses, andthe diffusion of revolutionary principles, induced the leadingmonarchs of Europe to confederate together, in order to suppressdisturbances in France. In July, the Emperor Leopold appealed to thesovereigns of Europe to unite for the deliverance of Louis XVI. Austria collected her troops, the emigrants at Coblentz made warlikedemonstrations, and preparations were made for a contest, which, before it was finished, proved the most bloody and extensive which hasdesolated the world since the fall of the Roman empire. 

The Constituent Assembly rejected with disdain the dictation of thevarious European powers; and the new ministry, of which Dumourier andRoland were the most prominent members, prepared for war. All classesin France were anxious for it, and war was soon declared. On the 25thof July, the Duke of Brunswick, with an army of one hundred andforty-eight thousand Prussians, Austrians, and Hessians, entered theFrench territory. The spirit of resistance animated all classes, andthe ardor of the multitude was without a parallel. The manifesto ofthe allied powers indicated the dispositions of the court andemigrants. Revolt against the throne now seemed necessary, in order tosecure the liberty of the people, who now had no choice betweenvictory and death. On the 25th of July, the Marseillais arrived inParis, and augmented the strength and confidence of the insurgents. Popular commotions increased, and the clubs became unmanageable. Onthe 10th of August, the tocsin sounded, the _générale_ beat in everyquarter of Paris, and that famous insurrection took place whichoverturned the throne. The Hotel de Ville was seized by theinsurgents, the Tuileries was stormed, and the Swiss guards weremassacred. The last chance for the king to regain his power was lost, and Paris was in the hands of an infuriated mob. 

The confinement of the king in the Temple, the departure of theforeign ambassadors, the flight of emigrants, the confiscation oftheir estates, the massacres in the prisons, the sack of palaces, thefall and flight of La Fayette, and the dissolution of the LegislativeAssembly, rapidly succeeded. 

[Sidenote: The National Convention. ]

On the 21st of September, the National Convention was opened, and wascomposed of the most violent advocates of revolution. It was ruled bythose popular orators who had the greatest influence in the clubs. Themost influential of these leaders were Danton, Marat, and Robespierre. Danton was the hero of the late insurrection; was a lawyer, a man ofbrutal courage, the slave of sensual passions, and the idol of theParisian mob. He was made minister of justice, and was the author ofthe subsequent massacres in the prisons. But, with all his ferocity, he was lenient to individuals, and recommended humanity after theperiod of danger had passed. 

[Sidenote: Marat--Danton--Robespierre. ]

Marat was a journalist, president of the Jacobin Club, a member of theconvention, and a violent advocate of revolutionary excesses. Hisbloody career was prematurely cut off by the hand of a heroine, Charlotte Corday, who offered up her own life to rid the country ofthe greatest monster which the annals of crime have consigned to aninfamous immortality. 

Robespierre was a sentimentalist, and concealed, under the mask ofpatriotism and philanthropy, an insatiable ambition, inordinatevanity, and implacable revenge. He was above the passion of money, and, when he had at his disposal the lives and fortunes of hiscountrymen, lived upon a few francs a day. It is the fashion to denyto him any extraordinary talent; but that he was a man of domineeringwill, of invincible courage, and austere enthusiasm appears fromnearly all the actions of his hateful career. 

It was in the midst of the awful massacre in the prisons, where morethan five thousand perished to appease the infatuated vengeance of theParisian mob, that the National Convention commenced its sittings. 

Its first measure was, to abolish the monarchy, and proclaim arepublic; the next, to issue new assignats. The two precedingassemblies had authorized the fabrication of twenty-seven hundredmillions of francs, and the Convention added millions more on thesecurity of the national domains. On the 7th of November, the trial ofthe king was decreed; and, on the 11th of December, his examinationcommenced. On his appearance at the bar of the Convention, thepresident, Barrere, said, "Louis, the French nation accuses you; youare about to hear the charges that are to be preferred. Louis, beseated. "

The charges consisted of the whole crimes of the revolution, to whichhe replied with dignity, simplicity, and directness. He was defended, in the mock trial, by Desèze, Tronchet, and Malesherbes; but his bloodwas demanded, and the assembly unanimously pronounced the condemnationof their king. That seven hundred men, with all the naturaldifferences of opinion, could be found to do this, shows the excess ofrevolutionary madness. On the 20th of January, Santerre appeared inthe royal prison, and read the sentence of death; and only three dayswere allowed the king to prepare for the last hour of anguish. On the24th of January, he mounted the scaffold erected between the garden ofthe Tuileries and the Champs Élysées, and the fatal axe separated hishead from his body. His remains were buried in the ancient cemetery ofthe Madeleine, over which Napoleon commenced, after the battle ofJena, a splendid temple of glory, but which was not finished until therestoration of the Bourbons, who converted it into the beautifulchurch which bears the name of the ancient cemetery. The spot whereLouis XVI. Offered up his life, in expiation of the crimes of hisancestors, is now marked by the colossal obelisk of red granite, whichthe French government, in 1831, brought from Egypt, a monument whichhas witnessed the march of Cambyses, and may survive the glory of theFrench nation itself. 

[Sidenote: General War. ]

The martyrdom of Louis XVI. Was the signal for a general war. All thepowers of Europe united to suppress the power and the principles ofthe French revolutionists. The Convention, after declaring war againstEngland, Holland, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Portugal, the Two Sicilies, the Roman States, Sardinia, and Piedmont, --all of which had combinedtogether, --ordered a levy of three hundred thousand men, instituted amilitary tribunal, and imposed a forced loan on the rich of onethousand millions, and prepared to defend the principles of libertyand the soil of France. The enthusiasm of the French was unparalleled, and the energies put forth were most remarkable. Patriotism andmilitary ardor were combined, and measures such as only extraordinarynecessities require were unhesitatingly adopted. 

A Committee of Public Safety was appointed, and the dictatorship ofDanton, Marat, and Robespierre commenced, marked by great horrors andbarbarities, but signalized by wonderful successes in war, and byexertions which, under common circumstances, would be scarcelycredited. 

This committee was composed of twenty-five persons at first, andtwelve afterwards; but Robespierre and Marat were the leading members. The committee assigned to ruling Jacobins the different departments ofthe government. St. Just was intrusted with the duty of denouncing itsenemies; Couthon for bringing forward its general measures; BillaudVarennes and Collot d'Herbois with the management of departments;Carnot was made minister of war; and Robespierre general dictator. This committee, though required to report to the Convention, as thesupreme authority, had really all the power of government. "It namedand dismissed generals, judges, and juries; brought forward allpublic measures in the Convention; ruled provinces and armies;controlled the Revolutionary Tribunal; and made requisitions of menand money; and appointed revolutionary committees, which sprung up inevery part of the kingdom to the frightful number of fifty thousand. It was the object of the Committee of Public Safety to destroy all whoopposed the spirit of the most violent revolutionary measures. Maratdeclared that two hundred and sixty thousand heads must fall beforefreedom was secure; the revolutionary committees discovered that sevenhundred thousand persons must be sacrificed. "

[Sidenote: Reign of Terror. ]

Then commenced the Reign of Terror, when all the prisons of Francewere filled with victims, who were generally the most worthy people inthe community, and whose only crime was in being obnoxious to thereigning powers. Those who were suspected fled, if possible, but weregenerally unable to carry away their property. Millions of propertywas confiscated; the prisons were crowded with the rich, the elegant, and the cultivated classes; thousands were guillotined; and universalanarchy and fear reigned without a parallel. Deputies, even those whohad been most instrumental in bringing on the Revolution, weresacrificed by the triumphant Jacobins. Women and retired citizens werenot permitted to escape their fear and vengeance. Marie Antoinette, and the Princess Elizabeth, and Madame Roland, were among the firstvictims. Then followed the executions of Bailly, Mayor of Paris;Barnave, one of the most eloquent and upright members of theConstituent Assembly; Dupont Dutertre, one of the ministers ofLouis XVI. ; Lavoisier, the chemist; Condorcet, the philosopher;General Custine; and General Houchard; all of whom had been the alliesof the present dominant party. The Duke of Orleans, called _Égalité_, who had supported the revolt of the 10th of August, and had voted forthe execution of the king, shared the fate of Louis XVI. He was thefather of Louis Philippe, and, of all the victims of the revolution, died the least lamented. 

The "Decemvirs" had now destroyed the most illustrious advocates ofconstitutional monarchy and of republican liberty. The slaughter oftheir old friends now followed. The first victim was Danton himself, who had used his influence to put a stop to the bloody executionswhich then disgraced the country, and had recognized the existence ofa God and the rights of humanity. For such sentiments he was denouncedand executed, together with Camille Desmoulins, and Lacroix, whoperished because they were less wicked than their associates. Finally, the anarchists themselves fell before the storm which they had raised, and Hebert, Gobet, Clootz, and Vincent died amid the shouts of generalexecration. The Committee of Public Safety had now all things in theirown way, and, in their iron hands, order resumed its sway from theinfluence of terror. "The history of the world has no parallel to thehorrors of that long night of suffering, because it has no parallel tothe guilt which preceded it; tyranny never assumed so hideous a form, because licentiousness never required so severe a punishment. "

The Committee of Public Safety, now confident of its strength, decreedthe disbanding of the revolutionary army, raised to overawe thecapital, and the dissolution of all the popular societies which didnot depend on the Jacobin Club, and devoted all their energies toestablish their power. But death was the means which they took tosecure it, and two hundred thousand victims filled the prisons ofFrance. 

[Sidenote: Death of Robespierre. ]

At last, fear united the members of the Convention, and they resolvedto free the country of the great tyrant who aimed at the suppressionof all power but his own. "Do not flatter yourselves, " said Tallien tothe Girondists, "that he will spare you, for you have committed anunpardonable offence in being freemen. " "Do you still live?" said heto the Jacobins; "in a few days, he will have your heads if you do nottake his. " All parties in the assembly resolved to overthrow theircommon enemy. Robespierre, the chief actor of the bloody tragedy, Dumas, the president of the Revolutionary Tribunal, Henriot, thecommander of the National Guard, Couthon and St. Just, the tools ofthe tyrant, were denounced, condemned, and executed. The last hours ofRobespierre were horrible beyond description. When he was led toexecution, the blood flowed from his broken jaw, his face was deadlypale, and he uttered yells of agony, which filled all hearts withterror. But one woman, nevertheless, penetrated the crowd whichsurrounded him, exclaiming, "Murderer of my kindred! your agony fillsme with joy; descend to hell, covered with the curses of every motherin France. "

Thus terminated the Reign of Terror, during which, nearly nineteenthousand persons were guillotined; and among these were over twothousand nobles and one thousand priests, besides immense numbers ofother persons, by war or the axe, in other parts of France. 

But vigorous measures had been adopted to carry on the war againstunited Christendom. No less than two hundred and eighty thousand menwere in the field, on the part of the allies, from Basle to Dunkirk. Toulon and Lyons had raised the standard of revolt, Mayence gave theinvaders a passage into the heart of the kingdom, while sixty thousandinsurgents in La Vendée threatened to encamp under the walls of Paris. But under the exertions of the Committee, and especially of Carnot, the minister of war, still greater numbers were placed under arms, France was turned into an immense workshop of military preparations, and the whole property of the state, by means of confiscations andassignats, put at the disposal of the government. The immense debts ofthe government were paid in paper money, while conscription filled theranks with all the youth of the state. Added to all this force whichthe government had at its disposal, it must be remembered that thearmy was burning with enthusiastic dreams of liberty, and ofpatriotism, and of glory. No wonder that such a nation of soldiers andenthusiasts should have been able to resist the armies of unitedChristendom. 

[Sidenote: New Constitution. ]

On the death of Robespierre, (July, 1794, ) a great reaction succeededthe Reign of Terror. His old associates and tools were executed ortransported, the club of the Jacobins was closed, the RevolutionaryTribunals were suppressed, the rebellious faubourgs were subdued, theNational Guard was reorganized, and a new constitution was formed. 

[Sidenote: The Directory. ]

The constitution of 1798, framed under different influences, established the legislative power among two councils, --that of the_Five Hundred_, and that of the _Ancients_. The former was intrustedwith the power of originating laws; the latter had the power to rejector pass them. The executive power was intrusted to five persons, called _Directors_, who were nominated by the Council of Five Hundred, and approved by that of the Ancients. Each individual was to bepresident by rotation during three months, and a new director was tobe chosen every year. The Directory had the entire disposal of thearmy, the finances, the appointment of public functionaries, and themanagement of public negotiations. 

But there were found powerful enemies to the new constitution. Pariswas again agitated. The National Guard took part with the disaffected, and the Convention, threatened and perplexed, summoned to its aid abody of five thousand regular troops. The National Guard mustered ingreat strength, to the number of thirty thousand men, and resolved tooverawe the Convention, which was likened to the Long Parliament inthe times of Cromwell. The Convention intrusted Barras with itsdefence, and he demanded, as his second in command, a young officer ofartillery who had distinguished himself at the siege of Toulon. By hisadvice, a powerful train of artillery was brought to Paris by alieutenant called _Murat_. On the 4th of October, 1795, the wholeneighborhood of the Tuileries resembled an intrenched camp. Thecommander of the Convention then waited the attack of the insurgents, and the action soon commenced. Thirty thousand men surrounded thelittle army of six thousand, who defended the Convention and the causeof order and law. Victory inclined to the regular troops, who had theassistance of artillery, and, above all, who were animated by thespirit of their intrepid leader--_Napoleon Bonaparte_. The insurgentswere not a rabble, but the flower of French citizens; but they wereforced to yield to superior military skill, and the reign of themilitary commenced. 

Thus closed what is technically called the French Revolution; the mostawful political hurricane in the annals of modern civilized nations. It closed, nominally, with the accession of the Directory to power, but really with the accession of Napoleon; for, shortly after, hisvictories filled the eyes of the French nation, and astonished thewhole world. 

[Sidenote: Reflections. ]

It is impossible to pronounce on the effects of this great Revolution, since a sufficient time has not yet elapsed for us to form healthyjudgments. We are accustomed to associate with some of the actorsevery thing that is vile and monstrous in human nature. Butunmitigated monsters rarely appear on earth. The same men who exciteour detestation, had they lived in quiet times might have beenrespected. Even Robespierre might have retained an honorable name tohis death, as an upright judge. But the French mind was deranged. Newideas had turned the brains of enthusiasts. The triumph of theabstract principles of justice seemed more desirable than thepreservation of human life. The sense of injury and wrong was toovivid to allow heated partisans to make allowances for the commoninfirmities of man. The enthusiasts in liberty could not see inLouis XVI. Any thing but the emblem of tyranny in the worst form. Theyfancied that they could regenerate society by their gospel of socialrights, and they overvalued the virtues of the people. But, above all, they over-estimated themselves, and placed too light a value on theimperishable principles of revealed religion; a religion which enjoinspatience and humility, as well as encourages the spirit of liberty andprogress. But whatever may have been their blunders and crimes, andhowever marked the providence of God in overruling them for theultimate good of Europe, still, all contemplative men behold in theRevolution the retributive justice of the Almighty, in humiliating aproud family of princes, and punishing a vain and oppressive nobilityfor the evils they had inflicted on society. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --Alison's History of the French Revolution, marked by his English prejudices, heavy in style, and inaccurate in many of his facts, yet lofty, temperate, and profound. Thiers's History is more lively, and takes different views. Carlyle's work is extremely able, but the most difficult to read of all his works, in consequence of his affected and abominable style. Lamartine's History of the Girondists is sentimental, but pleasing and instructive. Mignet's History is also a standard. Lacretelle's Histoire de France, and the Memoirs of Mirabeau, Necker, and Robespierre should be read. Carlyle's Essays on Mirabeau and Danton are extremely able. Burke's Reflections should be read by all who wish to have the most vivid conception of the horrors of the awful event which he deprecated. The Annual Register should be consulted. For a general list of authors who have written on this period, see Alison's index of writers, prefixed to his great work, but which are too numerous to be mentioned here. 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. 

[Sidenote: Napoleon Bonaparte. ]

Mr. Alison has found it necessary to devote ten large octavo volumesto the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte; nor can the varied eventsconnected with his brilliant career be satisfactorily described infewer volumes. The limits of this work will not, however, permit anotice extending beyond a few pages. Who, then, even among those forwhom this History is especially designed, will be satisfied with ourbrief review? But only a brief allusion to very great events can bemade; for it is preposterous to attempt to condense the life of thegreatest actor on the stage of real tragedy in a single chapter. Andyet there is a uniformity in nearly all of the scenes in which heappears. The history of war is ever the same--the exhibition ofexcited passions, of restless ambition, of dazzling spectacles ofstrife, pomp, and glory. Pillage, oppression, misery, crime, despair, ruin, and death--such are the evils necessarily attendant on all war, even glorious war, when men fight for their homes, for their altars, or for great ideas. The details of war are exciting, but painful. Weare most powerfully reminded of our degeneracy, of our misfortunes, ofthe Great Destroyer. The "Angel Death" appears before us, in grimterrors, punishing men for crimes. But while war is so awful, andattended with all the evils of which we can conceive, or which it isthe doom of man to suffer, yet warriors are not necessarily theenemies of mankind. They are the instruments of the Almighty toscourge a wicked world, or to bring, out of disaster and suffering, great and permanent blessings to the human race. 

[Sidenote: Character of Napoleon. ]

Napoleon is contemplated by historians in both those lights. TheEnglish look upon him, generally, as an ambitious usurper, who aimedto erect a universal empire upon universal ruin; as an Alexander, aCæsar, an Attila, a Charles XII. The French nation regard him almostas a deity, as a messenger of good, as a great conqueror, who foughtfor light and freedom. But he was not the worst or the best ofwarriors. His extraordinary and astonishing energies were called intoexercise by the circumstances of the times; and he, taking advantageof both ideas and circumstances, attempted to rear a majestic throne, and advance the glory of the country, of which he made himself theabsolute ruler. His nature was not sanguinary, or cruel, orrevengeful; but few conquerors have ever committed crimes on a greaterscale, or were more unscrupulous in using any means, lawful orunlawful, to accomplish a great end. Napoleon had enlightened views, and wished to advance the real interests of the French nation, but notuntil he had climbed to the summit of power, and realized all thosedreams which a most inordinate ambition had excited. He doubtlessrescued his country from the dangers which menaced it from foreigninvasion; but his conquests and his designs led to still greatercombinations, and these, demanding for their support the unitedenergies of Christendom, deluged the world with blood. Napoleon, to anextraordinary degree, realized the objects to which he had aspired;but these were not long enjoyed, and he was hurled from his throne ofgrandeur and of victory, to impress the world, which he mocked anddespised, of the vanity of military glory and the dear-earned trophiesof the battle field. No man was ever permitted by Providence toaccomplish so much mischief, and yet never mortal had more admirersthan he, and never were the opinions of the wise more divided inregard to the effects of his wars. A painful and sad recital may bemade of the desolations he caused, so that Alaric, in comparison, would seem but a common robber, while, at the same time, a gloriouseulogium might be justly made of the many benefits he conferred uponmankind. The good and the evil are ever combined in all greatcharacters; but the evil and the good are combined in him in such vastproportions, that he seems either a monster of iniquity, or an objectof endless admiration. There are some characters which the eye of themind can survey at once, as the natural eye can take in theproportions of a small but singular edifice; but Napoleon was a geniusand an actor of such wonderful greatness and majesty, both from hisnatural talents and the great events which he controlled, that herises before us, when we contemplate him, like some vast pyramid orsome majestic cathedral, which the eye can survey only in details. Ourage is not sufficiently removed from the times in which he lived, weare too near the object of vision, to pronounce upon the generaleffect of his character, and only prejudiced or vain persons wouldattempt to do so. He must remain for generations simply an object ofawe, of wonder, of dread, of admiration, of hatred, or of love. 

Nor can we condense the events of his life any more than we cananalyze his character and motives. We do not yet know their relativeimportance. In the progress of ages, some of them will stand out morebeautiful and more remarkable, and some will be entirely lost sightof. Thousands of books will waste away as completely as if they wereburned, like the Alexandrian library; and a future age may know nomore of the details of Napoleon's battles than we now know ofAlexander's marches. But the main facts can never be lost; somethingwill remain, enough to "point a moral or adorn a tale. " The object ofall historical knowledge is moral wisdom, and this we may learn fromnarratives as brief as the stories of Joseph and Daniel, or theaccounts which Tacitus has left us of the lives of the Roman tyrants. 

[Sidenote: Early Days of Napoleon. ]

Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsica, the 15th of August, 1769, ofrespectable parents, and was early sent to a royal military school atBrienne. He was not distinguished for any attainments, except inmathematics; he was studious, reserved, and cold; he also exhibited aninflexible will, the great distinguishing quality of his mind. At theage of fourteen, in view of superior attainments, he was removed tothe military school at Paris, and, at the age of seventeen, receivedhis commission as second lieutenant in a regiment of artillery. 

[Sidenote: Early Services to the Republic. ]

When the Revolution broke out, Toulon, one of the arsenals of France, took a more decided part in favor of the king and the constitutionthan either Marseilles or Lyons, and invited the support of theEnglish and Spanish squadrons. The Committee of Public Safetyresolved to subdue the city; and Bonaparte, even at that time abrigadier-general, with the command of the artillery at the siege, recommended a course which led to the capture of that important place. 

For his distinguished services and talents, he was appointed second incommand, by the National Convention, when that body was threatened andoverawed by the rebellious National Guard. He saved the state anddefended the constitutional authorities, for which service he wasappointed second in command of the great army of the interior, andthen general-in-chief in the place of Barras, who found his new officeas director incompatible with the duties of a general. 

The other directors who now enjoyed the supreme command were Reubel, Laréveillère-Lépeaux, Le Tourneur, and Carnot. Sièyes, a man of greatgenius, had been elected, but had declined. Among these five men, Carnot was the only man of genius, and it was through his exertionsthat France, under the Committee of Public Safety, had been saved fromthe torrent of invasion. But Barras, though inferior to Carnot ingenius, had even greater influence, and it was through his favor thatBonaparte received his appointments. That a young man of twenty-fiveshould have the command of the army of the interior, is as remarkableas the victories which subsequently showed that his elevation was notthe work of chance, but of a providential hand. 

The acknowledged favorite of Barras was a young widow, by birth aCreole of the West Indies, whose husband, a general in the army of theRhine, had been guillotined during the Reign of Terror. Her name wasJosephine Beauharnois; and, as a woman of sense, of warm affections, and of rare accomplishments, she won the heart of Bonaparte, and wasmarried to him, March 9, 1796. Her dowry was the command of the armyof Italy, which, through her influence, the young general received. 

Then commenced his brilliant military career. United with Josephine, whom he loved, he rose in rank and power. 

The army which Bonaparte commanded was composed of forty-two thousandmen, while the forces of the Italian states numbered one hundred andsixty thousand, and could with ease be increased to three hundredthousand. But Italian soldiers had never been able to contend witheither Austrian or French, and Bonaparte felt sure of victory. Hissoldiers were young men, inured to danger and toil; and among hisofficers were Berthier, Massena, Marmont, Augereau, Serrurier, Joubert, Lannes, and Murat. They were not then all generals, but theybecame afterwards marshals of France. 

[Sidenote: The Italian Campaign. ]

The campaign of 1796, in Italy, was successful beyond precedent in thehistory of war; and the battles of Montenotte, Millesimo, and Dego, the passage of the bridge of Lodi, the siege of Mantua, and thevictories at Castiglione, Caldiero, Arcola, Rivoli, and Mantua, extended the fame of Bonaparte throughout the world. The Austrianarmies were every where defeated, and Italy was subjected to the ruleof the French. "With the French invasion commenced tyranny under thename of liberty, rapine under the name of generosity, the stripping ofchurches, the robbing of hospitals, the levelling of the palaces ofthe great, and the destruction of the cottages of the poor; all thatmilitary license has of most terrible, all that despotic authority hasof most oppressive. "

While Bonaparte was subduing Italy, the French under Moreau werecontending, on the Rhine, with the Austrians under the ArchdukeCharles. Several great battles were fought, and masterly retreats weremade, but without decisive results. 

It is surprising that England, France, and the other contendingpowers, were able at this time to commence the contest, much more soto continue it for more than twenty years. The French Directory, onits accession to power, found the finances in a state of inextricableconfusion. Assignats had fallen to almost nothing, and taxes werecollected with such difficulty, that there were arrears to the amountof fifteen hundred millions of francs. The armies were destitute andill paid, the artillery without horses, and the infantry depressed bysuffering and defeat. In England, the government of Pitt was violentlyassailed for carrying on a war against a country which sought simplyto revolutionize her own institutions, and which all the armies ofEurope had thus far failed to subdue. Mr. Fox, and others in theopposition, urged the folly of continuing a contest which had alreadyadded one hundred millions of pounds to the national debt, and at atime when French armies were preparing to invade Italy; but Pittargued that the French must be nearly exhausted by their greatexertions, and would soon be unable to continue the warfare. Thenation, generally, took this latter view of the case, and parliamentvoted immense supplies. 

The year 1797 opened gloomily for England. The French had gainedimmense successes. Bonaparte had subdued Italy, Hoche had suppressedthe rebellion in La Vendée, Austria was preparing to defend her lastbarriers in the passes of the Alps, Holland was virtually incorporatedwith Republican France, Spain had also joined its forces, and thewhole continent was arrayed against Great Britain. England hadinterfered in a contest in which she was not concerned, and was forcedto reap the penalty. The funds fell from ninety-eight to fifty-one, and petitions for a change of ministers were sent to the king fromalmost every city of note in the kingdom. The Bank of England stoppedpayment in specie, and the country was overburdened by taxation. Nevertheless, parliament voted new supplies, and made immensepreparations, especially for the increase of the navy. One hundred andtwenty-four ships of the line, one hundred and eighty frigates, andone hundred and eighty-four sloops, were put in commission, and sentto the various quarters of the globe. 

[Sidenote: Battle of St. Vincent. ]

Soon after occurred the memorable mutiny in the English fleet, whichproduced the utmost alarm; but it was finally suppressed by thevigorous measures which the government adopted, and the happy union offirmness and humanity, justice and concession which Mr. Pittexercised. The mutiny was entirely disconnected with France, andresulted from the real grievances which existed in the navy;grievances which, to the glory of Pitt, were candidly considered andpromptly redressed. The temporary disgrace which resulted to the navyby this mutiny was soon, however, wiped away by the battle of Cape St. Vincent, in which Admiral Jervis, seconded by Nelson and Collingwood, with fifteen ships of the line and six frigates, defeated a Spanishfleet of twenty-seven ships of the line and twelve frigates. Thisimportant naval victory delivered England from all fears of invasion, and inspired courage into the hearts of the nation, groaning under theheavy taxes which the war increased. Before the season closed, theDutch fleet, of fifteen ships of the line and eleven frigates, wasdefeated by an English one, under Admiral Duncan, consisting ofsixteen ships of the line and three frigates. The battles ofCamperdown and Cape St. Vincent, in which the genius of Duncan andNelson were signally exhibited, were among the most important foughtat sea during the war, and diffused unexampled joy throughout GreatBritain. The victors were all rewarded. Jervis became Earl St. Vincent, Admiral Duncan became a viscount, and Commodore Nelson becamea baronet. Soon after the bonfires and illuminations for thesevictories were ended, Mr. Burke died urging, as his end approached, the ministry to persevere in the great struggle to which the nationwas committed. 

[Sidenote: Conquest of Venice by Napoleon. ]

While the English were victorious on the water, the French obtainednew triumphs on the land. In twenty days after the opening of thecampaign of 1797, Bonaparte had driven the Archduke Charles, with anarmy equal to his own, over the Julian Alps, and occupied Carniola, Carinthia, Trieste, Fiume, and the Italian Tyrol, while a force offorty-five thousand men, flushed with victory, was on the northerndeclivity of the Alps, within fifty leagues of Vienna. In the midst ofthese successes, an insurrection broke out in the Venetianterritories; and, as Bonaparte was not supported, as he expected, bythe Armies of the Rhine, and partly in consequence of the jealousy ofthe Directory, he resolved to forego all thoughts of dictating peaceunder the walls of Vienna, and contented himself with making asadvantageous terms as possible with the Austrian government. Bonaparteaccomplished his object, and directed his attention to the subjugationof Venice, no longer the "Queen of the Adriatic, throned on herhundred isles, " but degenerate, weakened, and divided. Bonaparteacted, in his treaty with Austria, with great injustice to Venice, andalso encouraged the insurrection of the people in her territories. Andwhen the Venetian government attempted to suppress rebellion in itsown provinces, Bonaparte affected great indignation, and soon foundmeans to break off all negotiations. The Venetian senate made everyeffort to avert the storm, but in vain. Bonaparte declared war againstVenice, and her fall soon after resulted. The French seized all thetreasure they could find, and obliged the ruined capital to furnishheavy contributions, and surrender its choicest works of art. Soonafter, the youthful conqueror established himself in the beautifulchateau of Montebello near Milan, and there dictated peace to theassembled ambassadors of Germany, Rome, Genoa, Venice, Naples, Piedmont, and the Swiss republic. The treaty of Campo Formio exhibitedboth the strength and the perfidy of Bonaparte, especially inreference to Venice, which was disgracefully despoiled to pay theexpenses of the Italian wars. Among other things, the splendid bronzehorses, which, for six hundred years, had stood over the portico ofthe church of St. Mark, to commemorate the capture of Constantinopleby the Venetian crusaders, and which had originally been brought fromCorinth to Rome by ancient conquerors, were removed to Paris todecorate the Tuileries. 

Bonaparte's journey from Italy to Paris, after Venice, with itsbeautiful provinces, was surrendered to Austria, was a triumphalprocession. The enthusiasm of the Parisians was boundless; the publiccuriosity to see him indescribable. But he lived in a quiet manner, and assumed the dress of a member of the Institute, being latelyelected. Great _fêtes_ were given to his honor, and his victories weremagnified. 

[Sidenote: Invasion of Egypt. ]

But he was not content with repose or adulation. His ambitious soulpanted for new conquests, and he conceived the scheme of his Egyptianinvasion, veiled indeed from the eyes of the world by a pretendedattack on England herself. He was invested, with great pomp, by theDirectory, with the command of the army of England, but easily inducedthe government to sanction the invasion of Egypt. It is not probablethat Bonaparte seriously contemplated the conquest of England, knowingthe difficulty of supporting and recruiting his army, even if hesucceeded in landing his forces. He probably designed to divert theattention of the English from his projected enterprise. 

When all was ready, Bonaparte (9th May) embarked at Toulon in a fleetof thirteen ships of the line, fourteen frigates, seventy-two brigs, and four hundred transports, containing thirty-six thousand soldiersand ten thousand sailors. He was joined by reinforcements at Genoa, Ajaccio, Civita Castellana, and on the 10th of June arrived at Malta, which capitulated without firing a shot; proceeded on his voyage, succeeded in escaping the squadron of Nelson, and on the 1st of Julyreached Alexandria. He was vigorously opposed by the Mamelukes, whowere the actual rulers of the country, but advanced in spite of themto Cairo, and marched along the banks of the Nile. Near the Pyramids, a great battle took place, and the Mamelukes were signally defeated, and the fate of Egypt was sealed. 

[Sidenote: Siege of Acre. ]

But Nelson got intelligence of Bonaparte's movements, and resolved to"gain a peerage, or a grave in Westminster Abbey. " Then succeeded thebattle of the Nile, and the victory of Nelson, one of the mostbrilliant but bloody actions in the history of naval warfare. Nelsonwas wounded, but gained a peerage and magnificent presents. The battlewas a mortal stroke to the French army, and made the conquest of Egyptuseless. Bonaparte found his army exiled, and himself destined tohopeless struggles with Oriental powers. But he made gigantic efforts, in order to secure the means of support, to prosecute scientificresearches, and to complete the conquest of the country. He crossedthe desert which separates Africa from Asia, with his army, which didnot exceed sixteen thousand men, invaded Syria, stormed Jaffa, massacred its garrison, since he could not afford to support theprisoners, --a most barbarous measure, and not to be excused even inview of the policy of the act, --and then advanced to Acre. Itsmemorable siege in the time of the Crusades should have deterredBonaparte from the attempt to subdue it with his little army in themidst of a hostile population. But he made the attack. The fortress, succored by Sir Sidney Smith, successfully resisted the impetuosity ofhis troops, and they were compelled to retire with the loss of threethousand men. His discomfited army retreated to Egypt, and sufferedall the accumulated miseries which fatigue, heat, thirst, plague, andfamine could inflict. He, however, amidst all these calamities, addedto discontents among the troops, won the great battle of Aboukir, andimmediately after, leaving the army under the command of Kleber, returned to Alexandria, and secretly set sail for France, accompaniedby Berthier, Lannes, Murat, Marmont, and other generals. He succeededin escaping the English cruisers, and, on the 8th of October, 1799, landed in France. 

Bonaparte, had he not been arrested at Acre by Sir Sidney Smith, probably would have conquered Asia Minor, and established an Orientalempire; but such a conquest would not have been permanent. Morebrilliant victories were in reserve for him than conquering troops ofhalf-civilized Turks and Arabs. 

During the absence of Bonaparte in Egypt, the French Directory becameunpopular, and the national finances more embarrassed than ever. ButSwitzerland was invaded and conquered--an outrage which showed theambitious designs of the government more than any previous attackwhich it had made on the liberties of Europe. The Papal States werenext seized, the venerable pontiff was subjected to cruel indignities, and the treasures and monuments of Rome were again despoiled. "TheVatican was stripped to its naked walls, and the immortal frescoes ofRaphael and Michael Angelo alone remained in solitary beauty amidstthe general desolation. " The King of Sardinia was driven from hisdominions, and Naples yielded to the tricolored flag. Immense militarycontributions were levied in all these unfortunate states, and allthat was beautiful in art was transported to Paris. 

[Sidenote: Reverses of the French. ]

In the mean time, the spirits of the English were revived by thevictories of Nelson, and greater preparations than ever were made toresist the general, who now plainly aimed at the conquest of Europe. England, Austria, and Russia combined against France and her armiesmet with reverses in Italy and on the Rhine. Suwarrow, with a largearmy of Russians united with Austrians gained considerable success, and General Moreau was obliged to retreat before him. Serruriersurrendered with seven thousand men, and Suwarrow entered Milan intriumph, with sixty thousand troops. Turin shared the fate of Milan, and Piedmont and Lombardy were overrun by the allies. The republicanswere expelled from Naples. Mantua fell, and Suwarrow marched with hisconquering legions into Switzerland. 

[Sidenote: Napoleon First Consul. ]

These disasters happened while Bonaparte was in Egypt; and his returnto France was hailed with universal joy. His victories in Egypt hadprepared the way for a most enthusiastic reception, and for hisassumption of the sovereign power. All the generals then in Paris paidtheir court to him, and his saloon, in his humble dwelling in the RueChantereine, resembled the court of a monarch. Lannes, Murat, Berthier, Jourdan, Augereau, Macdonald, Bournonville, Leclerc, Lefebvre, and Marmont, afterwards so illustrious as the marshals ofthe emperor, offered him the military dictatorship, while Sièyes, Talleyrand, and Régnier, the great civil leaders, concurred to placehim at the head of affairs. He himself withdrew from the gaze of thepeople, affected great simplicity, and associated chiefly with mendistinguished for literary and scientific attainments. But he secretlyintrigued with Sièyes and with his generals. Three of the Directorysent in their resignations, and Napoleon assumed the reins ofgovernment under the title of _First Consul_, and was associated withSièyes and Roger Ducos. The legislative branches of the governmentresisted, but the Council of Five Hundred was powerless before thebayonets of the military. A new revolution was effected, and despoticpower in the hands of a military chieftain commenced. He, however, signalized himself by the clemency he showed in the moment of victory, and the principles of humanity, even in the government of a militarydespot, triumphed over the principles of cruelty. Bonaparte chose ablemen to assist him in the government. Talleyrand was made minister offoreign affairs. Fouché retained his portfolio of police, and thecelebrated La Place was made minister of the interior. On the 24th ofDecember, 1799, the new constitution was proclaimed; and, shortlyafter, Sièyes and Roger Ducos withdrew from the consulate, and gaveplace to Cambacères and Lebrun, who were in the interests of Napoleon. 

The first step of the first consul was to offer peace to GreatBritain; and he wrote a letter to the king, couched in his peculiarstyle of mock philanthropy and benevolence, in which he spoke of peaceas the first necessity and truest glory of nations! Lord Grenville, minister of foreign affairs, replied in a long letter, in which helaid upon France the blame of the war, in consequence of herrevolutionary principles and aggressive spirit, and refused to makepeace while the causes of difficulty remained; in other words, untilthe Bourbon dynasty was restored. The Commons supported the governmentby a large majority, and all parties prepared for a still moredesperate conflict. Napoleon was obliged to fight, and probablydesired to fight, feeling that his power and the greatness of hiscountry would depend upon the victories he might gain; that so long asthe _éclat_ of his government continued, his government would bestrong. Mr. Pitt was probably right in his opinion that no peace couldbe lasting with a revolutionary power, and that every successive peacewould only pave the way for fresh aggressions. Bonaparte could onlyfulfil what he called his destiny, by continual agitation; and thiswas well understood by himself and by his enemies. The contest hadbecome one of life and death; and both parties resolved that no peaceshould be made until one or the other was effectually conquered Theland forces of Great Britain, at the commencement of the year 1800, amounted to one hundred and sixty-eight thousand men, exclusive ofeighty thousand militia, while one hundred and twenty thousand seamenand marines were voted. The ships in commission were no less than fivehundred, including one hundred and twenty-four of the line. Thecharter of the Bank of England was renewed, and the union with Irelandeffected. The various German states made still greater exertions, andagreed to raise a contingent force of three hundred thousand men. Theywere greatly assisted in this measure by subsidies from Great Britain. Austria, alone, had in the field at this time a force of two hundredthousand men, half of whom belonged to the army of Italy under Melas. 

[Sidenote: Immense Military Preparations. ]

To make head against the united forces of England and Austria, with adefeated army, an exhausted treasury, and a disunited people, was thedifficult task of Bonaparte. His first object was to improve thefinances; his second, to tranquillize La Vendée; his third, to detachRussia from the allies; his fourth, to raise armies equal to thecrisis; and all these measures he rapidly accomplished. One hundredand twenty thousand men were raised by conscription, without anyexemption from either rank or fortune, and two hundred and fiftythousand men were ready to commence hostilities. The first consulsuppressed the liberty of the press, fixed his residence in theTuileries, and established the usages and ceremonial of a court. Herevoked the sentence of banishment on illustrious individuals, established a secret police, and constructed the gallery of theLouvre. 

Hostilities commenced in Germany, and General Moreau was successfulover General Kray at the battles of Engen, Moeskirch, and Biberach. General Massena fought with great courage in the Maritime Alps, butwas obliged to retreat before superior forces, and shut himself up inGenoa, which endured a dreadful siege, but was finally compelled tosurrender. The victor, Melas, then set out to meet Bonaparte himself, who was invading Italy, and had just effected his wonderful passageover the Alps by the Great St. Bernard, one of the most wonderfulfeats in the annals of war; for his artillery and baggage had to betransported over one of the highest and most difficult passes of theAlps. The passes of the St. Gothard and Mount Cenis were also effectedby the wings of the army. The first action was at Montebello, whichended in favor of the French; and this was soon followed by a decisiveand brilliant victory at Marengo, (June 14, ) one of the mostobstinately contested during the war, and which was attended withgreater results than perhaps any battle that had yet occurred inmodern warfare. Moreau also gained a great victory over the Austriansat Hohenlinden, and Macdonald performed great exploits amid themountains of the Italian Tyrol. The treaty of Lunéville, (February 9, 1801, ) in consequence of the victorious career of Bonaparte, ceded toFrance the possession of Belgium, and the whole left bank of theRhine. Lombardy was erected into an independent state, Venice wasrestored to Austria, and the independence of the Batavian, Helvetic, Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics was guaranteed. This peace excitedunbounded joy at Paris, and was the first considerable pause in thecontinental strife. 

[Sidenote: The Reforms of Napoleon. ]

Napoleon returned to his capital to reconstruct society, which wasentirely disorganized. It was his object to restore the institutionsof religion, law, commerce, and education. He did not attempt to giveconstitutional freedom. This was impracticable; but he did desire tobring order out of confusion. One night, going to the theatre, henarrowly escaped death by the explosion of an "infernal machine. " Heattributed the design of assassination to the Jacobins, and forthwithtransported one hundred and thirty of them, more as a statesman thanas a judge. He was determined to break up that obnoxious party, andthe design against his life furnished the pretence. Shortly after, heinstituted the Legion of Honor, an order of merit which was designedto restore gradually the gradation in the ranks of society. He wasviolently opposed, but he carried his measures through the Council ofState; and this institution, which at length numbered two thousandpersons, civil and military, became both popular and useful. He thenrestored the external institution of religion, and ten archbishops andfifty bishops administered the affairs of the Gallican Church. Therestoration of the Sunday, with its customary observances, was hailedby the peasantry with undisguised delight, and was a pleasing sight tothe nations of Europe. He then contemplated the complete restorationof all the unalienated national property to the original proprietors, but was forced to abandon the design. A general amnesty, was alsoproclaimed to emigrants, by which one hundred thousand peoplereturned, not to enjoy their possessions, but to recover a part ofthem, and breathe the air of their native land. At last, he resolvedto make himself first consul for life, and seat his family on amonarchical throne. He was opposed by the Council of State; but heappealed to the people, and three million three hundred andsixty-eight thousand two hundred and nine, out of three million fivehundred and fifty-seven thousand eight hundred and eighty-fiveelectors, voted for his elevation. 

[Sidenote: The Code Napoléon. ]

The "_Code Napoléon_" then occupied his attention, indisputably thegreatest monument of his reign, and the most beneficial event of hisage. All classes and parties have praised the wisdom of this greatcompilation, which produced more salutary changes than had beeneffected by all the early revolutionists. Amid these greatundertakings of the consul, the internal prosperity of France wasconstantly increasing, and education, art, and science received animmense impulse. Every thing seemed to smile upon Bonaparte, and allappeared reconciled to the great power which he exercised. 

But there were some of his generals who were attached to republicanprinciples, and viewed with ill-suppressed jealousy the rapid strideshe was making to imperial power. Moreau, the victor at Hohenlinden, was at the head of these, and, in conjunction with Fouché, who hadbeen turned out of his office on account of the immense power which itgave him, formed a conspiracy of republicans and royalists to overturnthe consular throne. But Fouché revealed the plot to Bonaparte, whorestored him to power, and Generals Moreau and Pichegru, the Duked'Enghien, and other illustrious persons were arrested. The dukehimself was innocent of the conspiracy, but was sacrificed to thejealousy of Bonaparte, who wished to remove from the eyes of thepeople this illustrious scion of the Bourbon family, the only memberof it he feared. This act was one of the most cruel and unjustifiable, and therefore, impolitic, which Bonaparte ever committed. "It wasworse than a crime, " said Talleyrand; "it was a blunder. " His murderagain lighted the flames of continental war, and from it may be datedthe commencement of that train of events which ultimately hurledNapoleon from the imperial throne. 

That possession was what his heart now coveted, and he thereforeseized what he desired, and what he had power to retain. On the 18thof May, 1804, Napoleon was declared Emperor of the French, and anoverwhelming majority of the electoral votes of France confirmed himin his usurpation of the throne of Hugh Capet. 

His first step, as emperor, was the creation of eighteen marshals, allmemorable in the annals of military glory--Berthier, Murat, Moncey, Jourdan, Massena, Augereau, Bernadotte, Soult, Brune, Lannes, Mortier, Ney, Davoust, Bessières, Kellermann, Lefebvre, Pérignon, andSerrurier. The individual lives of these military heroes cannot herebe alluded to. 

Early in the year 1805, the great powers of England, Austria, andRussia entered into a coalition to reduce France to its ancientlimits, and humble the despot who had usurped the throne. Enormouspreparations were made by all the belligerent states, and four hundredthousand men were furnished by the allies for active service; a forcenot, however, much larger than Napoleon raised to prosecute his schemeof universal dominion. 

[Sidenote: Meditated Invasion of England. ]

Among other designs, he meditated the invasion of England itself, andassembled for that purpose one of the most splendid armies which hadbeen collected since the days of the Roman legions. It amounted to onehundred and fourteen thousand men, four hundred and thirty-two piecesof cannon, and fourteen thousand six hundred and fifty-four horses. Ample transports were provided to convey this immense army to theshores of England. But the English government took corresponding meansof defence, having fathomed the designs of the enemy, who hadsucceeded in securing the coöperation of Spain. This great design ofNapoleon was defeated by the vigilance of the English, and the numberof British ships which defended the coasts--the "wooden walls" whichpreserved England from a most imminent and dreaded danger. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Austerlitz. ]

Frustrated in the attempt to invade Great Britain, Napoleon instantlyconceived the plan of the campaign of Austerlitz, and without delaygave orders for the march of his different armies to the banks of theDanube. The army of England on the shores of the Channel, the forcesin Holland, and the troops in Hanover were formed into seven corps, under the command of as many marshals, comprising altogether onehundred and ninety thousand men, while the troops of his allies inItaly and Germany amounted to nearly seventy thousand more. Eightythousand new conscripts were also raised, and all of these weredesigned for the approaching conflict with the Austrians. 

But before the different armies could meet together in Germany, Nelsonhad gained the great and ever-memorable victory of Trafalgar, (October23, ) on the coast of Spain, by which the naval power of France andSpain was so crippled and weakened, that England remained, during thecontinuance of the war, sovereign mistress of the ocean. Nothing couldexceed the transports of exultation which pervaded the British empireon the news of this great naval victory--perhaps the greatest in theannals of war. And all that national gratitude could prompt was donein honor of Nelson. The remains of the fallen victor were buried inSt. Paul's Cathedral, over which a magnificent monument was erected. His brother, who inherited his title, was made an earl, with a grantof six thousand pounds a year, and an estate worth one hundredthousand pounds. Admiral Collingwood, the second in command, wasraised to the peerage, with a grant of two thousand pounds yearly. Butthe thoughts of the nation were directed to the departed hero, andcountless and weeping multitudes followed him to the grave; and hismemory has ever since been consecrated in the hearts of hiscountrymen, who regard him, and with justice, as the greatest navalcommander whom any nation or age has produced. 

Early in October, the forces of Napoleon were marshalled on the plainsof Germany, and the Austrians, under the Archduke Charles, acted onthe defensive. Napoleon advanced rapidly on Vienna, seized the bridgewhich led from it to the northern provinces of the empire, passedthrough the city, and established his head-quarters at Schoenbrunn. Onthe 1st of December was fought the celebrated battle of Austerlitz, the most glorious of all Napoleon's battles, and in which his militarygenius shone with the greatest lustre, and which decided the campaign. Negotiations with Austria, dictated by the irresistible power of theFrench emperor, were soon concluded at Presburg, (27th December, ) bywhich that ancient state was completely humbled. The dethronement ofthe King of Naples followed, and the power of Napoleon wasconsolidated on the continent of Europe. 

The defeat of Austerlitz was a great blow to the allied powers, andthe health and spirits of Pitt sunk under the disastrous intelligence. A devouring fever seized his brain, and delirium quenched the fire ofhis genius. He died on the 23d of January, 1806, at the age offorty-seven, with the exclamation, "Alas, my country!" after havingnobly guided the British bark in the most stormy times his nation hadwitnessed since the age of Cromwell. He was buried with great pomp inWestminster Abbey, and died in debt, after having the control, for somany years, of the treasury of England. Mr. Fox did not long survivehis more illustrious rival, but departed from the scene of conflictand of glory the 13th of September. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Jena. ]

The humiliation of Prussia succeeded that of Austria. The battle ofJena, the 14th of October, prostrated, in a single day, the strengthof the Prussian monarchy, and did what the united armies of Austria, Russia, and France could not accomplish by the Seven Years' War. Napoleon followed up his victories by bold and decisive measures, invested Magdeburg, which was soon abandoned, entered Berlin intriumph, and levied enormous contributions on the kingdom, to theamount of one hundred and fifty-nine millions of francs. In less thanseven weeks, three hundred and fifty standards, four thousand piecesof cannon, and eighty thousand prisoners were taken; while onlyfifteen thousand, out of one hundred and twenty thousand men, wereable to follow the standards of the conquered king to the banks of theVistula. Alarm, as well as despondency, now seized all the nations ofEurope. All the coalitions which had been made to suppress arevolutionary state had failed, and the proudest monarchs ofChristendom were suppliant at the feet of Napoleon. 

The unfortunate Frederic William sued for peace; but such hardconditions were imposed by the haughty conqueror at Berlin, that theKing of Prussia prepared for further resistance, especially in view ofthe fact that the Russians were coming to his assistance At Berlin, Napoleon issued his celebrated decrees against British commerce, which, however, flourished in spite of them. 

[Sidenote: Napoleon Aggrandizes France. ]

Napoleon then advanced into Poland to meet the Russian armies, and atEylau, on the 8th of February, 1807, was fought a bloody battle, inwhich fifty thousand men perished. It was indecisive, but had theeffect of checking the progress of the French armies. But Napoleonordered new conscriptions, and made unusual exertions, so that he soonhad two hundred and eighty thousand men between the Vistula and Memel. New successes attended the French armies, which resulted in a peacewith Russia, at Tilsit, on the river Niemen, at which place Napoleonhad a personal interview with the Emperor Alexander and the King ofPrussia. By this treaty, (7th July, ) Poland was erected into aseparate principality, and the general changes which Napoleon had madein Europe were ratified by the two monarchs. Soon after, Napoleon, having subdued resistance on the continent of Europe, returned to hiscapital. He was now at the height of his fame and power, but on anelevation so high that his head became giddy. Moreover, his elevation, at the expense of Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Prussia, Saxony, and Russia, to say nothing of inferior powers, excited theenvy and the hatred of all over whom he had triumphed, and preparedthe way for new intrigues and coalitions. 

Napoleon after the peace of Tilsit, devoted all his energies to thepreservation of his power and to the improvement of his country, andexpected of his numerous subjects the most implicit obedience to hiswill. He looked upon himself as having received a commission fromHeaven to rule and to reign as absolute monarch of a vast empire, as abeing upon whom the fate of France depended. The watchwords "liberty, ""equality, " "fraternity, " "the public welfare, " were heard no more, and gave place to others which equally flattered the feelings of theFrench people--"the interests of the empire, " "the splendor of theimperial throne. " From him emanated all glory and power, and the wholestructure of the state, executive, judicial, and legislative, dependedupon his will. Freedom, in the eyes of the people, was succeeded byglory, and the _éclat_ of victory was more highly prized than anyfictitious liberty. The _Code Napoléon_ rapidly progressed; schools ofscience were improved; arts, manufactures, and agriculture revived. Great monuments were reared to gratify the national pride andperpetuate the glory of conquests. The dignity of the imperial thronewas splendidly maintained, and the utmost duties of etiquette wereobserved. He encouraged amusements, festivities, and _fêtes_; andTalma, the actor, as well as artists and scholars, received hispersonal regard. But his reforms and his policy had reference chieflyto the conversion of France into a nation of soldiers; and his systemof conscription secured him vast and disciplined armies, not animated, as were the soldiers of the revolution, by the spirit of liberty, buttransformed into mechanical forces. The time was to come, in spite ofthe military enthusiasm of his veteran soldiers, when it was to beproved that the throne of absolutism is better sustained by love thanby mechanism. 

[Sidenote: Aggrandizement of Napoleon's Family. ]

Napoleon had already elevated his two brothers, Louis and Joseph, tothe thrones of Holland and Naples. He now sought to make his brotherJoseph the King of Spain. He availed himself of a quarrel between KingCharles and his son; acted as mediator, in the same sense thatHastings and Clive acted as mediators in the quarrels of Indianprinces; and prepared to seize, not to humble, one of the oldest andproudest monarchies of Europe. 

The details of that long war on the Spanish peninsula, which resultedfrom the appointment of Joseph Bonaparte to the throne of Spain, havebeen most admirably traced by Napier, in the best military historythat has been written in modern times. The great hero of that war wasWellington; and, though he fought under the greatest disadvantages andagainst superior forces, --though unparalleled sufferings and miseriesensued among all the belligerent forces, --still he succeeded inturning the tide of French conquest. 

Spain did not fall without a struggle. The Spanish Juntas adopted allthe means of defence in their power; and the immortal defence ofSaragossa, the capital of Arragon, should have taught the imperialrobber that the Spanish spirit, though degenerate, was not yetextinguished. 

It became almost the universal wish of the English to afford theSpaniards every possible assistance in their honorable struggle, andSir Arthur Wellesley, the conqueror of the Mahrattas, landed inPortugal in August, 1808. He was immediately opposed by Marshal Junot. Napoleon could not be spared to defend in person the throne of hisbrother, but his most illustrious marshals were sent into the field;and, shortly after, the battle of Corunna was fought, at which SirJohn Moore, one of the bravest of generals, was killed in the momentof victory. 

[Sidenote: The Peninsular War. ]

Long and disastrous was that Peninsular war. Before it could beclosed, Napoleon was called to make new exertions. Austria had againdeclared war, and the forces which she raised were gigantic. Fivehundred and fifty thousand men, in different armies, were put underthe command of the Archduke Charles. Napoleon advanced against him, and was again successful, at Abensberg and at Eckmuhl. Again heoccupied Vienna; but its fall did not discourage the Austrians, who, soon after, were marshalled against the French at Wagram, whichdreadful battle made Napoleon once more the conqueror of Austria. Onthe 14th of November, 1809, he returned to Paris, and soon after madethe grand mistake of his life. 

He resolved to divorce Josephine, whom he loved and respected; a womanfully worthy of his love, and of the exalted position to which she wasraised. But she had no children, and Napoleon wanted an heir to theuniversal empire which he sought to erect on the ruins of the ancientmonarchies of Europe. The dream of Charlemagne and of Charles V. Washis, also--the revival of the great Western Empire. Moreover, Napoleonsought a domestic alliance with the proud family of the Germanemperor. He sought, by this, to gratify his pride and strengthen histhrone. He perhaps also contemplated, with the Emperor of Austria forhis father and ally, the easy conquest of Russia. Alexander sosupposed. "His next task, " said he, "will be to drive me back to myforests. "

The Empress Josephine heard of the intentions of Napoleon withindescribable anguish, but submitted to his will; thus sacrificing herhappiness to what she was made to believe would advance the welfare ofher country and the interests of that heartless conqueror whom shenevertheless loved with unparalleled devotion. On the 11th of March, 1810, the espousals of Napoleon and Maria Louisa were celebrated atVienna, the person of the former being represented by his favoriteBerthier. A few days afterwards she set out for France; and hermarriage, in a domestic point of view, was happy. Josephine had theadvantage over her in art and grace, but she was superior in thecharms of simplicity and modesty. "It is singular, " says Sir WalterScott, "that the artificial character should have belonged to thedaughter of a West India planter; that, marked by nature andsimplicity, to a princess of the proudest court in Europe. "

[Sidenote: War in Spain. ]

Meanwhile, the war in Spain was prosecuted, and Napoleon was master ofits richest and most powerful provinces. Seventy-five thousand men inAndalusia, under Soult; fifty thousand under Marmont, in Leon; sixtythousand under Bessières, at Valladolid and Biscay; forty-fivethousand under Macdonald, at Gerona, to guard Catalonia; thirtythousand under Suchet, twenty thousand under Joseph and Jourdan, fifteen thousand under Régnier, besides many more thousand troops inthe various garrisons, --in all over three hundred thousand men, --heldSpain in military subjection. Against these immense forces, marshalledunder the greatest generals of France, Spain and her allies couldoppose only about ninety thousand men, for the most part illdisciplined and equipped. 

The vital point of resistance was to be found shut up within the wallsof Cadiz, which made a successful defence. But Tortosa, Tarragona, Saguntum, and Valentia, after making most desperate resistance, fell. But Wellington gained, on the other hand, the great battle of Albuera, one of the bloodiest ever fought, and which had a great effect inraising the spirits of his army and of the Spaniards. The tide ofFrench conquest was arrested, and the English learned from theirenemies those arts of war which had hitherto made Napoleon triumphant. 

In the next campaign of 1812, new successes were obtained byWellington, and against almost overwhelming difficulties. He renewedthe siege of Badajoz, and carried this frontier fortress, whichenabled him now to act on the offensive, and to enter the Spanishterritories. The fall of Ciudad Rodrigo was attended with the sameimportant consequences. Wellington now aimed to reduce the Frenchforce on the Peninsula, although vastly superior to his own. He hadonly sixty thousand men; but, with this force, he invaded Spain, defended by three hundred thousand. Salamanca was the first place ofconsequence which fell: Marmont was totally defeated. Wellingtonadvanced to Madrid, which he entered the 12th of August, amid theenthusiastic shouts of the Spanish population. Soult was obliged toraise the siege of Cadiz, abandon Andalusia, and hasten to meet thegreat English general, who had turned the tide of French aggression. Wellington was compelled, of course, to retire before the immenseforces which were marching against him, and fell back to Salamanca, and afterwards to Ciudad Rodrigo. The campaign, on the part of theEnglish, is memorable in the annals of successful war, and the Frenchpower was effectually weakened, if it was not destroyed. 

[Sidenote: Invasion of Russia. ]

In the midst of these successes, Napoleon prepared for his disastrousinvasion of Russia; the most gigantic and most unfortunate expeditionin the whole history of war. 

Napoleon was probably induced to invade Russia in order to keep up thesuccession of victories. He felt that, to be secure, he must advance;that, the moment he sought repose, his throne would begin to totter;that nothing would sustain the enthusiasm of his countrymen but newtriumphs, commensurate with his greatness and fame. Some, however, dissuaded him from the undertaking, not only because it was plainlyaggressive and unnecessary, but because it was impolitic. Threehundred thousand men were fighting in Spain to establish his family onthe throne of the Bourbons, and the rest of Europe was watching hiscourse, with the intention of assailing him so soon as he should meetwith misfortunes. 

But neither danger nor difficulty deterred Napoleon from thecommission of a gigantic crime, for which no reasonable apology couldbe given, and which admits of no palliation. He made, however, afearful mistake, and his rapid downfall was the result. Providencepermitted him to humble the powers of Europe, but did not design thathe should be permanently aggrandized by their misfortunes. 

The forces of all the countries he had subdued were marshalled withthe French in this dreadful expedition, and nothing but enthusiasm wasexcited in all the dominions of the empire. The army of invasionamounted to above five hundred thousand men, only two hundred thousandof whom were native French. To oppose this enormous force, theRussians collected about three hundred thousand men; but Napoleon feltsecure of victory. 

On the banks of the Niemen he reviewed the principal corps of hisarmy, collected from so many countries, and for the support of whichthey were obliged to contribute. On the 24th of June, he and his hostscrossed the river; and never, probably, in the history of man, wasexhibited a more splendid and imposing scene. 

The Russians retreated as the allied armies advanced; and, on the 28thof June, Napoleon was at Wilna, where he foolishly remained seventeendays--the greatest military blunder of his life. The Emperor Alexanderhastened to Moscow, collected his armaments, and issued proclamationsto his subjects, which excited them to the highest degree ofenthusiasm to defend their altars and their firesides. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Smolensko. ]

Both armies approached Smolensko about the 16th of July, and there wasfought the first great battle of the campaign. The town was taken, andthe Russians retreated towards Moscow. But before this first conflictbegan, a considerable part of the army had perished from sickness andfatigue. At Borodino, another bloody battle was fought, in which moremen were killed and wounded than in any battle which history records. Napoleon, in this battle, did not exhibit his usual sagacity orenergy, being, perhaps, overwhelmed with anxiety and fatigue. Hisdispirited and broken army continued the march to Moscow, which wasreached the 14th of September. The Sacred City of the Russians wasabandoned by the army, and three hundred thousand of the inhabitantstook to flight. Napoleon had scarcely entered the deserted capital, and taken quarters in the ancient palace of the czars, before the citywas discovered to be on fire in several places; and even the Kremlinitself was soon enveloped in flames. Who could have believed that theRussians would have burnt their capital? Such an event surely neverentered into a Frenchman's head. The consternation and horrors of thatawful conflagration can never be described, or even conceived. Pillageand murder could scarcely add to the universal wretchedness. Execration, indignation, and vengeance filled the breasts of both theconquerors and the conquered. But who were the conquerors? Alas! thoseonly, who witnessed the complicated miseries and awful destruction ofthe retreating army, have answered. 

[Sidenote: Retreat of the French. ]

The retreat was the saddest tragedy ever acted by man, but renderedinevitable after the burning of Moscow, for Napoleon could not haveadvanced to St. Petersburg. For some time, he lingered in the vicinityof Moscow, hoping for the submission of Russia. Alexander was too wiseto treat for peace, and Napoleon and his diminished army, loaded, however, with the spoil of Moscow, commenced his retreat, in a hostileand desolate country, harassed by the increasing troops of the enemy. Soon, however, heavy frosts commenced, unusual even in Russia, and theroads were strewed by thousands who perished from fatigue and cold. The retreat became a rout; for order, amid general destruction anddespair, could no longer be preserved. The Cossacks, too, hung uponthe rear of the retreating army, and cut off thousands whom theelements had spared. In less than a week, thirty thousand horses died, and the famished troops preyed upon their remains. The efforts ofNapoleon proved in vain to procure provisions for the men, or foragefor the horses. Disasters thickened, and all abandoned themselves todespair. Of all the awful scenes which appalled the heart, the passageof the Beresina was the most dreadful. When the ice was dissolved inthe following spring, twelve thousand dead bodies were found upon theshore. The shattered remnants of the Grand Army, after unparalleledsuffering, at length reached the bank of the Niemen. Not more thantwenty thousand of the vast host with which Napoleon passed Smolenskoleft the Russian territory. Their course might be traced by the boneswhich afterwards whitened the soil. But before the Polish territorieswere reached, Napoleon had deserted his army, and bore to Parishimself the first intelligence of his great disaster. One hundred andtwenty-five thousand of his troops had died in battle, one hundred andninety thousand had been taken prisoners, and one hundred andthirty-two thousand had died of cold, fatigue and famine. Only eightythousand had escaped, of whom twenty-five thousand were Austrians andeighteen thousand were Prussians. The annals of the world furnish noexample of so complete an overthrow of so vast an armament, or soterrible a retribution to a vain-glorious nation. 

This calamity proved the chief cause of Napoleon's overthrow. Had heretained his forces to fight on the defensive, he would have been toostrong for his enemies; but, by his Russian campaign, he lost a greatpart of his veteran troops, and the veneration of his countrymen. 

His failure was immediately followed by the resurrection of Germany. Both Austria and Prussia threw off the ignominious yoke he hadimposed, and united with Russia to secure their ancient liberties. Theenthusiasm of the Prussians was unbounded, and immense preparationswere made by all the allied powers for a new campaign. Napoleonexerted all the energies, which had ever distinguished him, to rallyhis exhausted countrymen, and a large numerical force was againraised. But the troops were chiefly conscripts, young men, unable toendure the fatigue which his former soldiers sustained, and no longerinspired with their sentiments and ideas. 

[Sidenote: Battles of Lutzen and Bautzen. ]

The campaign of 1813 was opened in Germany, signalized by the battlesof Lutzen and Bautzen, in which the French had the advantage. Saxonystill remained true to Napoleon, and he established his head-quartersin Dresden. The allies retreated, but only to prepare for morevigorous operations. England nobly assisted, and immense supplies weresent to the mouth of the Elbe, and distributed immediately throughGermany. While these preparations were going on, the battle ofVittoria, in Spain, was fought, which gave a death blow to Frenchpower in the Peninsula, and placed Wellington in the front rank ofgenerals. Napoleon was now more than ever compelled to act on thedefensive, which does not suit the genius of the French character, andhe resolved to make the Elbe the base of his defensive operations. Hisarmies, along this line, amounted to the prodigious number of fourhundred thousand men; and Dresden, the head-quarters of Napoleon, presented a scene of unparalleled gayety and splendor, oflicentiousness, extravagance, and folly. But Napoleon was opposed byequally powerful forces, under Marshal Blucher, the Prussian general, a veteran seventy years of age, and Prince Schwartzenberg, whocommanded the Austrians. But these immense armies composed not onehalf of the forces arrayed in desperate antagonism. Nine hundredthousand men in arms encircled the French empire, which was defendedby seven hundred thousand. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Leipsic. ]

The allied forces marched upon Dresden, and a dreadful battle wasfought, on the 27th of August, beneath its walls, which resulted inthe retreat of the allies, and in the death of General Moreau, whofought against his old commander. But Napoleon was unable to remainlong in that elegant capital, having exhausted his provisions andforage, and was obliged to retreat. On the 15th of October was foughtthe celebrated battle of Leipsic, in which a greater number of menwere engaged than in any previous battle during the war, or probablyin the history of Europe--two hundred and thirty thousand against onehundred and sixty thousand. The triumph of the allies was complete. Napoleon was overpowered by the overwhelming coalition of his enemies. He had nothing to do, after his great discomfiture, but to retreat toFrance, and place the kingdom in the best defence in his power. Misfortunes thickened in every quarter; and, at the close of thecampaign, France retained but a few fortresses beyond the Rhine. Thecontest in Germany was over, and French domination in that country wasat an end. Out of four hundred thousand men, only eighty thousandrecrossed the Rhine. So great were the consequences of the battle ofLeipsic, in which the genius of Napoleon was exhibited as in formertimes, but which availed nothing against vastly superior forces. Agrand alliance of all the powers of Europe was now arrayed againstNapoleon--from the rock of Gibraltar to the shores of Archangel; fromthe banks of the Scheldt to the margin of the Bosphorus; the mightiestconfederation ever known, but indispensably necessary. The greatnessof Napoleon is seen in his indomitable will in resisting thisconfederation, when his allies had deserted him, and when his ownsubjects were no longer inclined to rally around his standard. Hestill held out, even when over a million of men, from the differentstates that he had humbled, were rapidly hemming him round andadvancing to his capital. Only three hundred and fifty thousand mennominally remained to defend his frontiers, while his real effectivearmy amounted to little over one hundred thousand men. A million ofhis soldiers in eighteen months had perished, and where was he to lookfor recruits?

[Sidenote: The Allied Powers Invade France. ]

On the 31st of December, 1814, fourteen hundred and seven years afterthe Suevi, Vandals, and Burgundians crossed the Rhine and enteredwithout opposition the defenceless provinces of Gaul, the unitedPrussians, Austrians, and Russians crossed the same river, and invadedthe territories of the modern Cæsar. They rapidly advanced towardsParis, and Napoleon went forth from his capital to meet them. Hiscause, however, was now desperate: but he made great exertions, anddisplayed consummate abilities, so that the forces of his enemies werefor a time kept at bay. Battles were fought and won by both sides, without decisive results. Slowly, but surely, the allied armiesadvanced, and gradually surrounded him. By the 30th of March, theywere encamped on the heights of Montmartre; and Paris, defenceless andmiserable, surrendered to the conquerors. They now refused to treatwith Napoleon, who, a month before, at the conference of Chatillon, might have retained his throne, if he had consented to reign over theterritories of France as they were before the Revolution. Napoleonretired to Fontainebleau; and, on the 4th of April, he consented toabdicate the throne he no longer could defend. His wife returned toher father's protection, and nearly every person of note orconsideration abandoned him. On the 11th, he formally abdicated, andthe house of Bourbon was restored. He himself retired to the Island ofElba, but was allowed two million five hundred thousand francs a year, the title of emperor, and four hundred soldiers as his body guard. Hisfarewell address to the soldiers of his old guard, at Fontainebleau, was pathetic and eloquent. They retained their attachment amid generaldesertion and baseness. 

Josephine did not long survive the fall of the hero she had loved, andwith whose fortunes her own were mysteriously united. She died on the28th, and her last hours were soothed by the presence of the EmperorAlexander, who promised to take her children under his protection. Ofall the great monarchs of his age, he was the most extensively belovedand the most profoundly respected. 

[Sidenote: Peace of Paris. ]

The allies showed great magnanimity and moderation after theirvictory. The monarchy of France was established nearly as it wasbefore the Revolution, and the capital was not rifled of any of itsmonuments, curiosities, or treasures--not even of those which Napoleonhad brought from Italy. Nor was there a military contribution imposedupon the people. The allies did not make war to destroy the kingdomof France, but to dethrone a monarch who had proved himself to bethe enemy of mankind. The peace of Paris was signed by theplenipotentiaries of France, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, andAustria, on the 30th of April; and Christendom, at last, indulged thehope that the awful conflict had ended. The Revolution and itsoffspring Napoleon were apparently suppressed, after more than threemillions of men had perished in the struggle on the part of France andof her allies alone. 

Great changes had taken place in the sentiments of all classes, sincethe commencement of the contest, twenty years before, and its closeexcited universal joy. In England, the enthusiasm was unparalleled, and not easy to be conceived. The nation, in its gratitude toWellington, voted him four hundred thousand pounds, and the highestmilitary triumphs. It also conferred rewards and honors on hisprincipal generals; for his successful operations in Spain were noslight cause of the overthrow of Napoleon. 

But scarcely were these rejoicings terminated, before Napoleon escapedfrom Elba, and again overturned the throne of the Bourbons. Theimpolitic generosity and almost inconceivable rashness of the allieshad enabled Napoleon to carry on extensive intrigues in Paris, and tocollect a respectable force on the island of which he was constitutedthe sovereign; while the unpopularity and impolitic measures of therestored dynasty singularly favored any scheme which Napoleon mighthave formed. The disbanding of an immense military force, thehumiliation of those veterans who still associated with the eagles ofNapoleon the glory of France, the derangement of the finances, and thediscontents of so many people thrown out of employment, naturallyprepared the way for the return of the hero of Marengo and Austerlitz. 

[Sidenote: Napoleon's Return to France. ]

On the 26th of February, he gave a brilliant ball to the principalpeople of the island, and embarked the same evening, with elevenhundred troops, to regain the sceptre which had been wrested from himonly by the united powers of Europe. On the 1st of March, his vesselscast anchor in the Gulf of St. Juan, on the coast of Provence; andNapoleon immediately commenced his march, having unfurled thetricolored flag. As he anticipated he was welcomed by the people, andthe old cry of "_Vive l'Empereur_" saluted his ears. 

The court of the Bourbons made vigorous preparations of resistance, and the armies of France were intrusted to those marshals who owedtheir elevation to Napoleon. Soult, Ney, Augereau, Massena, Oudinot, all protested devotion to Louis XVIII. ; and Ney promised the kingspeedily to return to Paris with Napoleon in an iron cage. But Ney wasamong the first to desert the cause of law and legitimacy, and threwhimself into the arms of the emperor. He could not withstand the artsand the eloquence of that great hero for whose cause he had so longfought. The defection of the whole army rapidly followed. The king wasobliged to fly, and Napoleon took possession of his throne, amid theuniversal transports of the imperial party in France. 

The intelligence of his restoration filled Europe with consternation, rage, and disappointment, and greater preparations were made than everto subdue a man who respected neither treaties nor the interests ofhis country. The unparalleled sum of one hundred and ten millions ofpounds sterling was decreed by the British senate for variouspurposes, and all the continental powers made proportionate exertions. The genius of Napoleon never blazed so brightly as in preparing forhis last desperate conflict with united Christendom; and, consideringthe exhaustion of his country, the forces which he collected wereastonishing. Before the beginning of June, two hundred and twentythousand veteran soldiers were completely armed and equipped; a greatproof of the enthusiastic ardor which the people felt for Napoleon tothe last. 

The Duke of Wellington had eighty thousand effective men under hiscommand, and Marshal Blucher one hundred and ten thousand. Theseforces were to unite, and march to Paris through Flanders. It wasarranged that the Austrians and Russians should invade France first, by Befort and Huningen, in order to attract the enemy's principalforces to that quarter. 

Napoleon's plan was to collect all his forces into one mass, andboldly to place them between the English and Prussians, and attackthem separately. He had under his command one hundred and twentythousand veteran troops, and therefore, not unreasonably, expected tocombat successfully the one hundred and ninety thousand of the enemy. He forgot, however, that he had to oppose Wellington and Blucher. 

[Sidenote: Battle of Waterloo. ]

On the 18th of June was performed the last sad act of the greattragedy which had for twenty years convulsed Europe with blood andtears. All the combatants on that eventful day understood the natureof the contest, and the importance of the battle. At Waterloo, Napoleon staked his last throw in the desperate game he had hazarded, and lost it; and was ruined, irrevocably and forever. 

Little signified his rapid flight, his attempt to defend Paris, or hisreadiness to abdicate in favor of his son. The allied powers again, onthe 7th of July, entered Paris, and the Bourbon dynasty was restored. 

Napoleon retired to Rochefort, hoping to escape his enemies and reachAmerica. It was impossible. He then resolved to throw himself upon thegenerosity of the English. He was removed to St. Helena, where he nolonger stood a chance to become the scourge of the nations. And there, on that lonely island, in the middle of the ocean, guarded mosteffectually by his enemies, his schemes of conquest ended. Hesupported his hopeless captivity with tolerable equanimity, showing nosigns of remorse for the injuries he had inflicted, but meditatingprofoundly on the mistakes he had committed, and conjecturing vainlyon the course he might have adopted for the preservation of his power. 

How idle were all his conjectures and meditations! His fall wasdecreed in the councils of Heaven, and no mortal strength could haveprevented his overthrow. His mission of blood was ended; and hisnation, after its bitter humiliation, was again to enjoy repose. Buthe did not live in vain. He lived as a messenger of divine vengeanceto chastise the objects of divine indignation. He lived to show to theworld what a splendid prize human energy could win; and yet to showhow vain, after all, was military glory, and how worthless is theenjoyment of any victory purchased by the sufferings of mankind. Helived to point the melancholy moral, that war, for its own sake, is adelusion, a mockery, and a snare, and that the greater the elevationto which unlawful ambition can raise a man, the greater will be hissubsequent humiliation; that "pride goeth before destruction, and ahaughty spirit before a fall. "

[Sidenote: Reflections on Napoleon's Fall. ]

The allied sovereigns of Europe insisted on the restoration of theworks of art which Napoleon had pillaged. "The bronzed horses, broughtfrom Corinth to Rome, again resumed their old station in the front ofthe Church of St. Mark; the Transfiguration was restored to theVatican; the Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned St. Peter's; theVenus was enshrined with new beauty at Florence; and the Descent fromthe Cross was replaced in the Cathedral of Antwerp. " By the treatywhich restored peace to Europe for a generation, the old dominions ofAustria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Holland, and Italy were restored, andthe Bourbons again reigned over the ancient provinces of France. Popular liberty on the continent of Europe was entombed, and thedreams of revolutionists were unrealized; but suffering proved abeneficial ordeal, and prepared the nations of Europe to appreciate, more than ever, the benefits and blessings of peace. 

 * * * * *

 REFERENCES. --The most complete work, on the whole, though full of faults, and very heavy and prosaic, is Alison's History of the French Revolution. Scott's Life of Napoleon was too hastily written, and has many mistakes. No English author has done full justice to Napoleon. Thiers's Histories are invaluable. Napier's History of the Peninsula War is masterly. Wellington's Despatches are indispensable only to a student. Botta's History of Italy under Napoleon. Dodsley's Annual Register. Labaume's Russian Campaign. Southey's Peninsular War. Liborne's Waterloo Campaign. Southey's Life of Nelson. Sherer's Life of the Duke of Wellington. Gifford's Life of Pitt. Moore's Life of Sir John Moore. James's Naval History. Memoirs of the Duchess d'Abrantes. Berthier's Histoire de l'Expédition d'Égypte. Schlosser's Modern History. The above works are the most accessible, but form but a small part of those which have appeared concerning the French Revolution and the career of Napoleon. For a complete list of original authorities, see the preface of Alison, and the references of Thiers. 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

EUROPE ON THE FALL OF NAPOLEON. 

[Sidenote: Complexity of Modern History. ]

It would be interesting to trace the history of the civilized worldsince the fall of Napoleon; but any attempt to bring within the limitsof a history like this a notice of the great events which havehappened for thirty-five years, would be impossible. And even a noticeas extended as that which has been presented of the events of threehundred years would be unsatisfactory to all minds. The common readeris familiar with the transactions of the present generation, andreflections on them would be sure to excite the prejudices of variousparties and sects. A chronological table of the events which havetranspired since the downfall of Napoleon is all that can beattempted. The author contemplates a continuation of this History, which will present more details, collected from original authorities. The history of the different American States, since the Revolution;the administration of the various presidents; the late war with GreatBritain; the Seminole and Mexican wars; the important questionsdiscussed by Congress; the contemporary history of Great Britain underGeorge IV. , William IV. , and Victoria; the conquests in India andChina; the agitations of Ireland; the great questions of Reform, Catholic Emancipation, Education, and Free Trade; the French wars inAfrica; the Turkish war; the independence of the Viceroy of Egypt; theprogress of Russian territorial aggrandizement; the fall of Poland;the Spanish rebellion; the independence of the South American states;the Dutch and Belgic war; the two last French revolutions; the greatprogress made in arts and sciences, and the various attempts indifferent nations to secure liberty;--these, and other great subjects, can only be properly discussed in a separate work, and even thencannot be handled by any one, however extraordinary his talents orattainments, without incurring the imputation of great audacity, whichonly the wants of the public can excuse. 

In concluding the present History, a very brief notice of the state ofthe civilized world at the fall of Napoleon may be, perhaps, required. 

[Sidenote: Remarkable Men of Genius. ]

England suffered less than any other of the great powers from theFrench Revolution. A great burden was, indeed, entailed on futuregenerations; but the increase of the national debt was not felt solong as English manufactures were purchased, to a great extent, by theContinental States. Six hundred million pounds were added to thenational debt; but England, internally, was never more flourishingthan during this long war of a quarter of a century. And not only wasglory shed around the British throne by the victories of Nelson andWellington, and the effectual assistance which England rendered to thecontinental powers, and without which the liberties of Europe wouldhave been subverted, but, during the reign of George III. , a splendidconstellation of men of genius, in literature and science, illuminatedthe world. Dr. Johnson made moral reflections on human life which willever instruct mankind; Burke uttered prophetic oracles which even hisage was not prepared to appreciate; and his rivals thundered in thesenate with an eloquence and power not surpassed by the orators ofantiquity; Gibbon wrote a history which such men as Guizot and Milmanpronounced wonderful both for art and learning; Hume, Reid, andStewart, carried metaphysical inquiry to its utmost depth; Gray, Burns, Goldsmith, Coleridge, Southey, and Wordsworth, were notunworthy successors of Dryden and Pope; Adam Smith called intoexistence the science of political economy, and nearly brought it toperfection in a single lifetime; Reynolds and West adorned thegalleries with pictures which would not have disgraced the land ofartists; while scholars, too numerous to mention, astonished the worldby the extent of their erudition; and divines, in language whichrivalled the eloquence of Chrysostom or Bossuet, declared to anawakened generation the duties and destinies of man. 

France, the rival of England, was not probably permanently injured bythe Revolution; for, if millions of lives were sacrificed, andmillions of property were swept away, still important civil and socialprivileges were given to the great mass of the people, and odiousfeudal laws and customs were broken forever. All the glory which warcan give, was obtained; and France, for twenty years, was feared andrespected. Popular liberty was not secured; but advances were madetowards it, and great moral truths were impressed upon the nation, --tobe again disregarded, but not to be forgotten. The territorial limitsof France were not permanently enlarged, and the conquests of Napoleonwere restored to the original rulers. The restoration of the formerpolitical system was insisted upon by the Holy Alliance, and theBourbon kings, in regaining their throne, again possessed all thattheir ancestors had enjoyed but the possession of the hearts of thepeople. The allied powers may have restored despotism and legitimacyfor a while; they could not eradicate the great ideas of theRevolution, and these were destined once more to overturn theirthrones. The reigns of Louis XVIII. , Charles X. , and Louis Philippewere but different acts of the long tragedy which was opened by theconvocation of the States General, and which is not probably closed bythe election of Prince Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the Frenchrepublic. The _ideas_ which animated La Fayette and Moreau, and whichRobespierre and Napoleon at one time professed, still live, in spiteof all the horrors of the Reign of Terror, and all the streams ofblood which flowed at Leipsic and Waterloo. Notwithstanding thesuicidal doctrines of Socialists and of the various schools of infidelphilosophers, and in view of all the evils which papal despotism, anddemocratic license, and military passions have inflicted, and willcontinue to inflict, still the immortal principles of liberty are safeunder the protection of that Providence which has hitherto advancedthe nations of Europe from the barbarism and paganism of ancientTeutonic tribes. 

[Sidenote: Condition of Germany. ]

Germany suffered the most, and apparently reaped the least, from thestorms which revolutionary discussion had raised. Austria and Prussiawere invaded, pillaged, and humiliated. Their cities were sacked, their fields were devastated, and the blood of their sons was pouredout like water. But sacrifice and suffering developed extraordinaryvirtues and energies, united the various states, and gave nationalityto a great confederation. The struggles of the Germans were honorableand gigantic, and proved to the world the impossibility of theconquest of states, however afflicted, when they are resolved todefend their rights. The career of Napoleon demonstrated theimpossibility of a universal empire in Europe, and least of all, anempire erected over the prostrated thrones and discomfited armies ofGermany. The Germans learned the necessity and the duty of union, andproved the strength of their sincere love for their native soil andtheir venerable institutions. The Germans, though poor in gold andsilver, showed that they were rich in patriotic ardor, and in allthose glorious sentiments which ennoble a great and progressivenation. After twenty years' contention, and infinite sacrifices andhumiliations, the different princes of Germany recovered their ancientterritorial possessions, and were seated, more firmly than before onthe thrones which legitimacy had consecrated. 

[Sidenote: Condition of Other Powers. ]

Absolute monarchy was restored also to Spain; but the imbecileBourbons, the tools of priests and courtiers, revived the ancientprinciples of absolutism and bigotry, without any of those virtueswhich make absolutism respectable or bigotry endurable. But in thebreasts of Spanish peasants the fires of liberty burned, which all theterrors of priestly rule, and all the evils of priestly corruption, could not quench. They, thus far, have been unfortunate, but no personwho has studied the elements of the Spanish character, or has faith inthe providence of God, can doubt that the day of deliverance will, sooner or later, come, unless he has the misfortune to despair of anypermanent triumph of liberty in our degenerate world. 

In the northern kingdoms of Europe, no radical change took place; andItaly, the land of artists, so rich in splendid recollections, so poorin all those blessings which we are taught to value, returned to thedominion of Austria, and to the rule of despotic priests. Italy, disunited, abandoned, and enslaved, has made generous efforts tosecure what is enjoyed in more favored nations, but hitherto in vain. So slow is the progress of society! so hard are the struggles to whichman is doomed! so long continued are the efforts of any people tosecure important privileges!

Greece made, however, a more successful effort, and the fetters of theTurkish sultan were shaken off. The Ottoman Porte looked, with itsaccustomed indifference, on the struggles of the Christians, and tookno active part in the war until absolutely forced. But it looked withthe indifference of decrepit age, rather than with the philosophicalcalmness of mature strength, and exerted all the remaining energies itpossessed to prevent the absorption of the state in the vast andincreasing empire of the czars. Russia, of all the great powers whichembarked in the contest to which we have alluded, arose the strongestfrom defeat and disaster. The rapid aggrandizement of Russiaimmediately succeeded the fall of Napoleon. 

The spiritual empire of the Popes was again restored, and the Jesuits, with new powers and privileges, were sent into all the nations of theearth to uphold the absolutism of their great head. Again they havetriumphed when their cause seemed hopeless; nor is it easy to predictthe fall of their empire. So long as the principle of Evil shallcontend with the principle of Good, the popes will probably rejoiceand weep at alternate victories and defeats. 

[Sidenote: The United States of America. ]

The United States of America were too far removed from the scene ofconflict to be much affected by the fall of thrones. Moreover, it wasagainst the wise policy of the government to interfere with foreignquarrels. But the American nation beheld the conflict with anyfeelings but those of indifference, and, while its enlightened peoplespeculated on the chances of war, they still devoted themselves withardor to the improvement of their institutions, to agriculture, andmanufacturing interests. Merchants, for a while, made their fortunesby being the masters of the carrying trade of the world, and thenation was quietly enriched. The wise administrations of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, much as they conflicted, in somerespects, with each other, resulted in the growth of commerce, manufactures, agriculture, and the arts; while institutions ofliterature and religion took a deep hold of the affections of thepeople. The country increased and spread with unparalleled rapidity onall sides, and the prosperity of America was the envy and theadmiration of the European world. The encroachments of Great Britain, and difficulties which had never been settled, led to a war betweenthe two countries, which, though lamented at the time, is now viewed, by all parties, as resulting in the ultimate advancement of the UnitedStates in power and wealth, as well as in the respect of foreignnations. Great questions connected with the rapid growth of thecountry, unfortunately at different times, have produced acrimoniousfeelings between different partisans; but the agitation of these hasnot checked the growth of American institutions, or weakened thosesentiments of patriotism and mutual love, which, in all countries andages, have constituted the glory and defence of nations. The greatnessof American destinies is now a favorite theme with popular orators. Nor is it a vain subject of speculation. Our banner of Liberty willdoubtless, at no distant day, wave over all the fortresses which maybe erected on the central mountains of North America, or on the shoresof its far distant oceans; but all national aggrandizement will be invain without regard to those sacred principles of law, religion, andmorality, for which, in disaster and sorrow, both Puritan Settler andRevolutionary Hero contended. The believer in Progress, as affected byinfluences independent of man, as coming from the benevolentProvidence which thus far has shielded us, cannot otherwise than hopefor a still loftier national elevation than has been yet attained, with all the aid of circumstances, and all the energies of heroes. 

APPENDIX. 

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

FROM THE FALL OF NAPOLEON. 

 1815. --Battle of Waterloo, (June 18. ) Napoleon embarks for St. Helena, (August 7. ) Final Treaty at Paris between the Allied Powers, (November 20. ) Inauguration of the King of Holland. First Steam Vessels on the Thames. 

 1816. --Great Agricultural distress in Great Britain. Brazil declared a Kingdom. Consolidation of the Exchequers of England and Ireland. Marriage of the Princess Charlotte with Prince Leopold. 

 1817. --Disorders in Spain. Renewal of the Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Inauguration of President Monroe. Death of the Princess Charlotte. Death of Curran. 

 1818. --Entire Withdrawal of Foreign Forces from France. Seminole War. Great Discussions in Parliament on the Slave Trade. Death of Warren Hastings, of Lord Ellenborough, and of Sir Philip Francis. 

 1819. --Great depression of Trade and Manufactures in Great Britain. Great Reform meetings in Manchester, Leeds, and other large Towns, Lord John Russell's Motion for a Reform in Parliament. Organized bands of robbers in Spain. Settlement of the Pindarrie War in India. Assassination of Kotzebue. 

 1820. --Death of George III. , (January 23. ) Lord Brougham's Plan of Popular Education. Proceedings against Queen Caroline. Rebellion in Spain. Trial of Sir Francis Burdett. Election of Sir Humphrey Davy as President of the Royal Society. Ministry in France of the Duc de Richelieu. Death of Grattan; of the Duke of Kent. 

 1821. --Second Inauguration of President Monroe. Revolution in Naples and Piedmont. Insurrections in Spain. Independence of Colombia, and fall of Spanish Power in Mexico and Peru. Disturbances in Ireland. War in the Morea. Formal occupation of the Floridas by the United States. Extinction of the Mamelukes. Revolt in Wallachia and Moldavia. Death of Queen Caroline; of Napoleon. 

 1822. --Mr. Canning's Bill for the admission of Catholic Peers to the House of Lords. Disturbances in Ireland. Sir James Mackintosh's Motion for a reform of Criminal Law. Mr. Canning succeeds the Marquis of Londonderry (Lord Castlereagh) as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Amherst appointed Governor-General of India. Fall of the administration of the Duc de Richelieu. Congress of Vienna. War in Greece. Insurrection of the Janizaries. The Persian War. Settlement of the Canadian Boundary. Suicide of the Marquis of Londonderry. 

 1823. --Great Agricultural Distress in Great Britain. Debates on Catholic Emancipation, and on the Slave Trade. French Invasion of Spain. Captain Franklin's Voyage to the Polar Seas. Death of Pius VII. 

 1824. --General Prosperity in England. Capture of Ipsara by the Turks. Visit of La Fayette to the United States. Leaders of the Carbonari suppressed in Italy by the Austrian Government. Repeal of duties between Great Britain and Ireland. Burmese War, and Capture of Rangoon. Censorship of the Press in France. Death of Louis XVIII. , (September 16. )

 1825. --Inauguration of President Adams. Independence of Brazil acknowledged by Portugal. Coronation of Charles X. Siege of Missolonghi. Inundations in the Netherlands. Death of the Emperor Alexander, (December 1. )

 1826. --Bolivar chosen President of Peru for Life. Independence of Hayti acknowledged by France. Riots in Lancashire. Surrender of the fortress of St. Juan d'Ulloa to the Mexicans. Great Debates in Parliament on the Slave Trade. Death of Ex-President Adams; of Jefferson. Coronation of the Emperor Nicholas. 

 1827. --Death of the Earl of Liverpool, and dissolution of the Ministry. Mr. Canning appointed First Lord of the Treasury; dies four months after; succeeded by Lord Goderich. National Guard disbanded in France. Defeat of the Greek army before Athens. Battle of Navarino. Foundation of the University of London. Death of the Duke of York; of La Place; of Mitford, the Historian; of Eichhorn; of Pestalozzi; of Beethoven; of King Frederic Augustus of Saxony. 

 1828. --Dissolution of Lord Goderich's Ministry, and new one formed under the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Peel and the Earl of Aberdeen. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. New Corn Law. Riots in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell represents the County of Clare. New and Liberal ministry in France. Final departure of the French Armies from Spain. War between Naples and Tripoli. War between Russia and Turkey. Independence of Greece. Death of Ypsilanti. 

 1829. --Inauguration of President Jackson. Passage of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. New and Ultra-Royalist ministry in France, under Polignac. Victories of Count Diebitsch against the Turks. Surrender of Adrianople. Civil War in Mexico. Don Miguel acknowledged as King of Portugal by Spain. Burning of York Cathedral. Treaty between the United States and Brazil. Civil War in Chili. Death of Judge Washington. 

 1830. --Great discussions in Congress on the Tariff. Reform Agitations in England. Death of George IV. , (June 26. ) New Whig Ministry under Earl Grey and Lord John Russell. Opening of the Liverpool Railroad. Revolution in France, and the Duke of Orleans declared King. Capture of Algiers by the French. Belgium erected into an independent Kingdom. Riots and Insurrections in Germany. Plots of the Carlists in Spain. Murder of Joseph White. Death of Pope Leo XII. ; of the King of Naples; of Sir Thomas Lawrence; of the Grand Duke of Baden. 

 1831. --Dissolution of the Cabinet at Washington. Great discussions on the Reform Bill. Agitations in Ireland. Leopold made King of Belgium. Insurrection in Switzerland. Revolution in Poland. Treaty between the United States and Turkey. Coronation of William IV. Appearance of the Cholera in England. Its great ravages on the Continent. Death of Bolivar; of Robert Hall; of Mrs. Siddons; of William Roscoe; of James Monroe. 

 1832. --Veto of President Jackson of the Bill to recharter the United States Bank. Discontents in South Carolina, in consequence of the Tariff. War with the Indians. Bristol and Birmingham Riots. Final passage of the Reform Bill. Abolition of the Slave Trade in Brazil. Death of Casimir Périer, Prime Minister of France, who is succeeded by Marshal Soult. Death of Sir Walter Scott; of Sir James Mackintosh; of Spurzheim; of Cuvier; of Goethe; of Champollion; of Adam Clarke; of Andrew Bell; of Anna Maria Porter; of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. 

 1833. --Second Inauguration of Andrew Jackson. Mr. Clay's Tariff Bill. President Jackson's war with the United States Bank. Recharter of the Bank of England and of the East India Company. Fortifications of Paris commenced. Santa Anna inaugurated President of Mexico. Bill passed to abolish slavery in the British Colonies. Trial of Avery. Death of the King of Spain; of Mr. Wilberforce; of Hannah More; of Caspar Hauser; of Lord Grenville; of Dr. Schleiermacher. 

 1834. --Discussions on the Corn Laws. Destruction of the two Houses of Parliament. Change of Ministry in France. Congress of Vienna. Donna Maria acknowledged Queen of Portugal. Opening of the Boston and Worcester Railroad. Resignation of Earl Grey, succeeded by Lord Melbourne, who is again shortly succeeded by Sir Robert Peel. Irish Coercion Bill. Death of La Fayette; of William Wirt; of Dr. Porter; of General Huntingdon; of Coleridge; of Rev. Edward Irving. 

 1835. --New Ministry of Viscount Melbourne. French expedition to Algiers. Otho made King of Greece. Suppression of the Jesuits in Spain. Remarkable eruption of Vesuvius. Revolt in Spain. Great fire in New York. Death of the Emperor of Austria; of Chief Justice Marshall; of Nathan Dane; of McCrie; of William Cobbett. 

 1836. --Settlement of the disputes between France and the United States. Resignation of M. Thiers, who is succeeded, as Prime Minister of France, by Count Molé. Military operations against Abd-el-Kader. Massacre of the Carlist Prisoners at Barcelona. Isturitz made Prime Minister of Spain. Prince Louis Napoleon attempts an insurrection at Strasburg. Commutation of Tithes in England. Bill for the Registration of Births and Marriages. Passage of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. Agitations in Canada. War between Texas and Mexico. Burning of the Patent Office at Washington. Death of Aaron Burr; of the Abbé Sièyes; of Lord Stowell; of Godwin. 

 1837. --Inauguration of President Van Buren. Death of William IV. , (June 20. ) Insurrection in Canada. Suspension of cash payments by the Bank of the United States in Philadelphia, and by the banks in New York. Acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas. Treaty with the Indians. Great failures in New York. Great Protestant Meeting in Dublin. Change of Ministry in Spain. Death of Gustavus Adolphus IV. Of Sweden; of M. De Pradt; of Abiel Holmes; of Dr. Griffin; of Charles Botta; of Lovejoy. 

 1838. --War with the Seminoles. General Scott takes command of the New York Militia on the Frontiers. Affair of the Caroline. Lord Durham Governor-General of Canada. Coronation of Queen Victoria; of the Emperor Ferdinand. Violence of Civil War in Spain. Circassian War. Revolution in Peru and Bolivia. Peace between Russia and Turkey. Great Chartist meetings in England. Emancipation of the West India Negro Apprentices. Death of Lord Eldon; of Talleyrand; of Noah Worcester; of Dr. Bowditch; of Zachary Macaulay. 

 1839. --Disputes between Maine and New Brunswick. Resignation of the Melbourne Ministry, and the failure of Sir Robert Peel to construct a new one. Birmingham Riots. Chartist Convention. Resignation of Count Molé, who is succeeded, as Prime Minister, by Marshal Soult, and Guizot. Capture of the fortress of St. Juan d'Ulloa by the French. Treaty of Peace between France and Mexico. Affghan War. War between Turkey and Mohammed Ali. Invasion of Syria. Death of Lady Hester Stanhope; of Governor Hayne; of Dr. Bancroft; of Stephen Van Rensselaer; of Zerah Colburn; of Samuel Ward. 

 1840. --Marriage of Queen Victoria. Penny Postage in England. Affghan War. Difficulties in China respecting the Opium Trade. Blockade of Canton. Ministry of M. Thiers. Arrival of Napoleon's Remains from St. Helena. Abdication of the King of Holland. Continued Civil War in Spain. Burning of the Lexington. Ministry of Espartero. Death of Frederic William III. Of Prussia; of Lord Camden; of Dr. Olinthus Gregory; of Blumenbach; of Dr. Follen; of Dr. Kirkland; of John Lowell; of Judge Mellen; of Dr. Emmons; of Prof. Davis. 

 1841. --Inauguration of President Harrison; his Death; succeeded by John Tyler. Trial of McLeod. Repeal of the Sub-Treasury. Veto, by the President, of the Bill to establish a Bank. Resignation of the Melbourne Ministry, succeeded by that of Sir Robert Peel. War in Scinde. Espartero sole Regent of Spain. Revolution in Mexico. Treaty between Turkey and Egypt. Treaty between the United States and Portugal. Death of Chantrey; of Dr. Marsh; of Dr. Oliver; of Dr. Ripley; of Blanco White; of William Ladd. 

 1842. --Great Debates in Parliament on the Corn Laws. New Tariff of Sir Robert Peel. Affghan War. Treaty of Peace between England and China. Treaty between England and the United States respecting the North-eastern Boundary Question. Chartist Petitions. Income Tax. Accident on the Paris and Versailles Railroad. Death of the Duke of Orleans; of Lord Hill; of Dr. Charming; of Dr. Arnold; of Jeremiah Smith. 

 1843. --Activity of the Anti Corn Law League. Repeal Agitation in Ireland. Monster Meetings. Establishment of the Free Presbyterian Church in Scotland. War in Scinde. Sir James Graham's Factory Bill. Repudiation of State Debts. Death of Southey; of Dr. Ware; of Allston; of Legare; of Dr. Richards; of Noah Webster. 

 1844. --Corn Law Agitations in Great Britain. Passage of the Sugar Duties Bill; of the Dissenters' Chapel Bill. State Trials in Ireland. Opening of the Royal Exchange. Sir Charles Napier's victories in India. Louis Philippe's visit to England. War between France and Morocco. Disturbances on the Livingston and Rensselaer Manors. Insurrection in Mexico. Death of Secretary Upshur. 

 1845. --Installation of President Polk. Treaty between the United States and China. Great Fire in New York. Municipal disabilities removed from the Jews by Parliament. War in Algeria. Abdication of Don Carlos. Termination of the War in Scinde. Revolution in Mexico. War in the Punjaub. 

 1846--War between the United States and Mexico. Battle of Monterey. New Tariff Bill. Passage of the Corn Bill in England, and Repeal of Duties. Free Trade policy of Sir Robert Peel. Settlement of the Oregon Question. Distress in Ireland by the failure of the Potato Crop. Resignation of Sir Robert Peel; succeeded by Lord John Russell. Marriage of the Queen of Spain; and of her sister, the Infanta, to the Due de Montpensier. Escape of Prince Louis Napoleon from Ham. Death of Pope Gregory XVI. , and elevation of Pius IX. Death of Louis Napoleon, Ex-King of Holland. 

 1847. --Splendid military successes of Generals Scott and Taylor in Mexico. Fall of Mexico. Ravages of the Potato Disease. Awful Distress in Ireland. Guizot succeeds Soult as President of the Council. Frequent changes of Ministry in Spain. Civil War in Switzerland. Grant of a Constitution to Prussia. Liberal Measures of Pius IX. Death of the King of Denmark; of Dr. Chalmers; of Silas Wright. 

 1848. --French Revolution, and Fall of Louis Philippe. Abdication of the King of Bavaria. Tumults in Vienna and Berlin. Riots in Rome. Chartist demonstrations in London. Election of the National Assembly in France. General fermentation throughout Europe. Distress of Ireland. Oregon Territorial Bill. Free Soil Convention in Buffalo. Death of John Quincy Adams. Election of General Taylor for President of the United States. 

 * * * * *

PRIME MINISTERS OF ENGLAND SINCE THE ACCESSION OF HENRY VIII. 

KING HENRY VIII. 

 1509. Bishop Fisher, and Earl of Surrey. 

 1513. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. 

 1529. Sir Thomas More, and Cranmer. 

 1532. Lord Audley, (Chancellor, ) Archbishop Cranmer. 

 1538. Lord Cromwell, (Earl of Essex. )

 1540. Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Surrey, and Bishop Gardiner. 

 1544. Lord Wriothesley, Earl of Hertford. 

KING EDWARD VI. 

 The Earl of Hertford, continued. 

 1552. John, Duke of Northumberland. 

QUEEN MARY. 

 1553. Bishop Gardiner. 

QUEEN ELIZABETH. 

 1558. Sir Nicholas Bacon, and Sir William Cecil, (afterwards Lord Burleigh. )

 1564. Earl of Leicester, (a favorite)

 1588. Earl of Essex. 

 1601. Lord Buckhurst. 

JAMES I. 

 Lord Buckhurst, (Earl of Dorset. )

 1608. Earls of Salisbury, Suffolk, and Northampton. 

 1612. Sir Robert Carr (Earl of Somerset. )

 1615. Sir George Villiers (Duke of Buckingham. )

CHARLES I. 

 Duke of Buckingham. 

 1628. Earl of Portland, Archbishop Laud. 

 1640. Archbishop Laud, Earl of Strafford, Lord Cottington. 

 1640. Earl of Essex. 

 1641. Lord Falkland, Lord Digby. 

 Civil War, and Oliver Cromwell. 

CHARLES II. 

 1660. Earl of Clarendon. 

 1667. Dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale. 

 1667. Lord Ashley, Lord Arlington, Lord Clifford. 

 1673. Lord Arlington, Lord Ashley (Earl of Shaftesbury, ) and Sir Thomas Osborne. 

 1674. Sir Thomas Osborne. 

 1677. Earl of Essex, Duke of Ormond, Marquis of Halifax, Sir William Temple. 

 1682. Duke of York and his friends. 

JAMES II. 

 1685. Earls of Sunderland and Tyrconnell, Lord Jeffreys. 

 1687. Lord Jeffreys, Lord Arundel, Earl of Middleton. 

WILLIAM III. 

 1688. Lord Somers, Lord Godolphin, Earl of Danby (Duke of Leeds. )

 1695. Earl of Sunderland. 

 1697. Charles Montague (Earl of Halifax, ) Earl of Pembroke, Viscount Lonsdale, Earl of Oxford. 

QUEEN ANNE. 

 1705. Lord Godolphin, R. Harley, Lord Pembroke, Duke of Buckingham, Duke of Marlborough. 

 1707. Earl Godolphin, Lord Cowper, Dukes of Marlborough and Newcastle. 

 1710. R. Harley (Earl of Oxford. )

 1710. Earl of Rochester, Lord Dartmouth, Henry St. John (Lord Bolingbroke, ) Lord Harcourt. 

 1714. Duke of Shrewsbury. 

GEORGE I. 

 1714. Lord Cowper, Duke of Shrewsbury, Marquis of Wharton, Earl of Oxford, Duke of Marlborough, Viscount Townshend. 

 1715. Robert Walpole, Esq. 

 1717. Earl Stanhope. 

 1718. Earl of Sunderland. 

 1721. Sir Robert Walpole (Earl of Orford. )

GEORGE II. 

 1742. Lord Carteret, Lord Wilmington, Lord Bath, Mr. Sandys, &c. 

 1743. Hon. Henry Pelham, Lord Carteret, Earl of Harrington, Duke of Newcastle, &c. 

 1746. Mr. Pelham, Earl of Chesterfield, Duke of Bedford, &c. 

 1754. Duke of Newcastle, Sir Thos. Robinson, Henry Fox, &c. 

 1756. Duke of Devonshire, Mr. William Pitt, Earl Temple, Hon. H. B. Legge, &c. (Dismissed in April, 1757; restored in June the same year. )

 1757. William Pitt, Mr. Legge, Earl Temple, Duke of Newcastle, &c. 

GEORGE III. 

 1761. Earl of Bute, Earl of Egremont, Duke of Bedford, &c. 

 1762. Earl of Bute, Hon. George Grenville, Sir F. Dashwood, &c. 

 1763. Hon. George Grenville, Earl of Halifax, Earl of Sandwich, &c. 

 1765. Marquis of Rockingham, Duke of Grafton, Earl of Shelburne, &c. 

 1766. Duke of Grafton, Hon. Chas. Townshend, Earl of Chatham, &c. 

 1767. Duke of Grafton, Lord North, &c. 

 1770. Lord North, Lord Halifax, &c. 

 1779. Lord North, Lord Dartmouth, Lord Stormont, &c. 

 1782. Marquis of Rockingham, Chas. James Fox, &c. 

 1782. Earl of Shelburne, William Pitt, &c. 

 1783. Duke of Portland, Lord North, Mr. Fox, &c. 

 1783. Mr. Pitt, Lord Gower, Lord Thurlow, &c. 

 1786. Mr. Pitt, Lord Camden, Marquis of Stafford, &c. 

 1790. Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Duke of Leeds. 

 1795. Mr. Pitt, Duke of Portland, Mr. Dundas, &c. 

 1801. Rt. Hon. Henry Addington, Duke of Portland, &c. 

 1804. Mr. Pitt, Lord Melville, Geo. Canning, &c. 

 1806. Lord Grenville, Earl Spencer, Mr. Fox, &c. 

 1807. Duke of Portland, Mr. Canning, Earl Camden, &c. 

 1809. Mr. Perceval, Earl of Liverpool, Marquis Wellesley, &c. 

REGENCY OF THE PRINCE OF WALES. 

 Mr. Perceval, Earl of Liverpool, &c. 

 1812. Earl of Liverpool, Viscount Castlereagh, Viscount Sidmouth, &c. 

GEORGE IV. 

 Earl of Liverpool, &c. 

 1827. Rt. Hon. George Canning, Lord Goderich, Lord Lyndhurst, &c. 

 1827. Viscount Goderich, Duke of Portland, Mr. Huskisson, &c. 

 1828. Duke of Wellington, Rt. Hon. Robert Peel, Viscount Melville, &c. 

 1828. Duke of Wellington, Earl of Aberdeen, Sir G. Murray, &c. 

WILLIAM IV. 

 Duke of Wellington, &c. 

 1830. Earl Grey, Viscount Althorpe, Melbourne, Goderich, and Palmerston, &c. (Earl Grey resigns May 9, but resumes office May 18. )

 1834. Viscount Melbourne, Viscount Althorpe, Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, &c. 

 1834. Viscount Melbourne's Administration dissolved. The Duke of Wellington takes the helm of state provisionally, waiting the return of Sir Robert Peel from Italy. 

 1834. Sir Robert Peel, Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, &c. 

 1835. Viscount Melbourne and his colleagues return to office. 

QUEEN VICTORIA. 

 Viscount Melbourne, and the same Cabinet. 

 1839. Viscount Melbourne resigns, May 7. 

 Sir Robert Peel fails to form an administration. Lord Melbourne and friends reinstated. 

 1841. Sir Robert Peel, Duke of Wellington, Earl of Aberdeen. 

 1846. Lord John Russell, &c. 

 * * * * *

TABLE OF THE MONARCHS OF EUROPE

DURING THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, EIGHTEENTH, AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES. 

ENGLAND. 

 1509. Henry VIII. 1547. Edward VI. 1553. Mary. 1558. Elizabeth. 1603. James I. 1625. Charles I. 1653. Cromwell. 1660. Charles II. 1685. James II. 1688. William & Mary. 1702. Anne. 1714. George I. 1727. George II. 1760. George III. 1811. Prince of Wales, (Regent. ) 1820. George IV. 1830. William IV. 1837. Victoria. 

FRANCE. 

 1515. Francis I. 1547. Henry II. 1559. Francis II. 1560. Charles IX. 1574. Henry III. 1589. Henry IV. 1610. Louis XIII. 1643. Louis XIV. 1715. Louis XV. 1774. Louis XVI. 1789. Revolution. 1792. Republic. 1795. Directory. 1799. Consuls. 1802. Napoleon First Consul. 1804. Napoleon Emp'r. 1815. Louis XVIII. 1825. Charles X. 1830. Louis Philippe. 

GERMANY. 

 1493. Maximilian. 1519. Charles V. 1558. Ferdinand I. 1564. Maximilian II. 1576. Rodolph II. 1612. Matthias. 1619. Ferdinand II. 1637. Ferdinand III. 1658. Leopold I. 1705. Joseph I. 1711. Charles VI. 1742. Charles VII. 1745. Francis & Maria Theresa. 1765. Joseph II. 1790. Leopold II. 1792. Francis II. 

EMPERORS OF AUSTRIA. 

 1804. Francis. 1835. Ferdinand I. 

SPAIN. 

 1516. Charles I. 1556. Philip II. 1598. Philip III. 1621. Philip IV. 1665. Charles II. 1700. Philip V. 1724. Louis. 1725. Philip V. 1746. Ferdinand VI. 1759. Charles III. 1788. Charles IV. 1808. Ferdinand VII. 1808. Jos. Bonaparte. 1814. Ferdinand VII. 1820. Revolution. 1833. Isabella II. 

SWEDEN. 

 1523. Gustavus II. 1560. Erick XVI. 1568. John III. 1592. Sigismund. 1599. Charles IX. 1611. Gust. Adolphus. 1632. Christina. 1654. Charles X. 1660. Charles XI. 1697. Charles XII. 1718. Ulrica Leonora. 1751. Adolphus Frederic. 1771. Gustavus III. 1792. Gustavus IV. 1809. Charles XIII. 1810. Bernadotte. 

DENMARK. 

 1513. Christian II. 1523. Frederic I. 1534. Christian III. 1559. Frederic II. 1588. Christian IV. 1648. Frederic III. 1670. Christian V. 1699. Frederic IV. 1730. Christian VI. 1746. Frederic V. 1766. Christian VII. 1784. Regency. 1808. Frederic VI. 1839. Christian VIII. 

RUSSIA. 

 1696. Peter the Great. 1725. Catharine I. 1727. Peter II. 1730. Ivan. 1741. Elizabeth. 1761. Peter III. 1762. Catharine II. 1796. Paul I. 1801. Alexander. 1825. Nicholas. 

PRUSSIA. 

 1700. Frederic. 1713. Frederic Wm. 1740. Frederic II. 1786. Frederic Wm.  II. 1796. Fred. Wm.  III. 1840. Fred. Wm.  IV. 

TURKEY. 

 1512. Selim. 1520. Solyman. 1566. Selim II. 1574. Amurath III. 1595. Mohammed III. 1604. Achmet I. 1617. Mustapha I. 1618. Othman II. 1622. Mustapha II. 1623. Amurath IV. 1640. Ibrahim. 1655. Mohammed IV. 1687. Solyman II. 1691. Achmet II. 1695. Mustapha III. 1703. Achmet III. 1730. Mohammed V. 1757. Achmet IV. 1789. Selim III. 1807. Mustapha IV. 1808. Mohammed VI. 1819. Abdul Medjid. 

POPES. 

 1513. Leo X. 1522. Adrian VI. 1523. Clement VII. 1534. Paul III. 1550. Julius III. 1555. Marcellus III. 1555. Paul IV. 1559. Pius IV. 1566. Pius V. 1572. Gregory XIII. 1585. Sixtus V. 1590. Gregory XIV. 1590. Gregory XV. 1591. Innocent IX. 1592. Clement VIII. 1605. Leo XI. 1623. Urban VIII. 1644. Innocent X. 1655. Alexander VII. 1667. Clement IX. 1670. Clement X. 1676. Innocent XI. 1689. Alexander VIII. 1691. Innocent XII. 1700. Clement XI. 1721. Innocent XIII. 1724. Benedict XIII. 1730. Clement XII. 1740. Benedict XIV. 1758. Clement XIII. 1769. Clement XIV. 1775. Pius VI. 1800. Pius VII. 1823. Leo XII. 1831. Gregory XVI. 1847. Pius IX. 

GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY OF GREAT BRITAIN

+ _denotes date of decease. _

 JAMES I. + 1625. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Henry, d. Young. CHARLES I. Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia. + 1649. | | | ----------------------------------- | | | | CHARLES II. JAMES II. Electress Sophia of Hanover. + 1685 Abdic. 1688. + 1714. + 1701. | | | ------------------------------------------------ | George Louis, | | | | Elector of Hanover, MARY, ANNE, James the Pretender. | and GEORGE I. + 1694 + 1714. | + 1727. Wife of William III. Wife of George, Prince of Denmark, | Duke of Gloucester, d. Young. ------------------------ | | GEORGE II. Sophia, mother of + 1760. Frederic the Great. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | | | Frederic, Anne, married Amelia, Elizabeth, William, Maria, Louisa, George, Prince Prince d. Unmar. D. Unmar. Duke of Princess Queen d. Young. Of Wales, of Orange. Cumberland. Of Hesse. Of Denmark. + 1750. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | | | GEORGE III. Edward, William, Duke Henry, Frederic, Augusta, Elizabeth Caroline + 1820. Duke of York, of Gloucester, Duke of d. Young. Duchess of Louisa, Mathilda, | + 1767. + 1805. Cumberland. Brunswick. D. Unmarried. Queen of | Denmark. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | GEORGE IV. Frederic, WILLIAM IV. | Edward, Augusta Elizabeth, Ernest, Augustus, Adolphus, Mary, Sophia, Amelia, + 1830. Duke of + 1837. | Duke of Kent, + 1840. Princess of Duke of Duke of Duke of Duchess of d. Unmar. + 1809. | York. | | + 1820. Hesse-Homburg, Cumberland, Sussex. Cambridge. Gloucester. | + 1827. | | | + 1840. King of | | | | | Hanover. ----------------------- | | | | | | | | Charlotte, Charlotte, | VICTORIA. George. George. Augusta. Mary. Princess of Elizabeth. | | Wales, | | + 1817. | | | | | |--------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Charlotte, Victoria Adelaide. Prince Edward. Alice Maud. Alfred Ernest Albert. Queen of Wirtemberg, + 1828. 

GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE BOURBONS. 

+ _denotes date of decease. _

 HENRY IV. + 1610. | LOUIS XIII. + 1643. | --------------------------------- | | LOUIS XIV. + 1715. Philip, Duke of Orleans, | + 1710. | | Louis (Dauphin, ) Philip (Regent, ) + 1711. + 1723. | | ----------------------------- Louis, Duke of Orleans, | | + 1752. | | | Louis, PHILIP Louis Philip, D. Of Orleans, Duke of Burgundy, (Duke of Anjou, ) + 1785. + 1712. King of Spain, | | + 1746. | | | | | ----------------- ------------------- | | | | | LOUIS XV. FERDINAND VI. CHARLES IV. Louis Philip Louisa Maria, + 1774. + 1759. King of Naples, (Égalité, ) Duchess of | | + 1759. + 1796. Bourbon. | | | | Louis CHARLES III. FERDINAND IV. | (Dauphin, ) + 1788. + 1825. | + 1765. | | | | CHARLES IV. FRANCIS. | | Ab. 1808 + 1830. | | | | | | -------------------- | ----------------------- | | | | | | | | FERDINAND VII. Charles, FERDINAND V. LOUIS Anthony, Louis, | + 1833. Or PHILIPPE. Duke of Count of | | Don Carlos. Montpensier. Beaujolais, | | + 1808. | ISABELLA II. | ------------------------------------------------- | | | LOUIS XVI. LOUIS XVIII. CHARLES X. + 1793. + 1825. (Abd. ) | + 1836. | | ------------------------ -------------------------- | | | | Louis Joseph, Louis XVII. Louis, Charles, Duke of Berri, + 1789. + 1795. Duke of + 1820. Angoulême. | Henry, Duke of Bourdeaux.